No catches of European eel in 2026 can be in line with scientific advice

CCB • November 5, 2025

Widespread exploitation of the critically endangered European eel population continues against scientific advice, despite few signs of recovery. Yesterday, the International Exploration of the Sea, ICES, published its scientific advice on fishing opportunities and conservation for European eel for 2026. As in previous years, ICES advises zero catch for all life stages, all uses and in all habitats. The conservation advice is to reduce other human-related mortalities to zero and restore habitats.

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” [1] also applies to glass eel landings for restocking [2] and aquaculture. The message is reinforced by the advice on conservation aspects, highlighting the need to reduce other anthropogenic mortalities to zero, as well as restore both the quantity and quality of eel habitats.


The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is a critically endangered species [3] that has suffered a dramatic decline in numbers over the past 30 years [4]. 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; according to ICES, several countries continue to report annual landings [5] of over 100 tonnes. Reported commercial glass eel landings [6] remain above 55 tonnes. Where available, estimates of national recreational landings of yellow and silver eels [7] show that they can be of the same order of magnitude as those of commercial fisheries. All in contradiction with the scientific advice.


Management in the EU is primarily through the Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. However, in response to an EU Special Request Advice for an evaluation of the national progress reports on eel management plans, ICES concluded that in most cases, escapement and mortalities are still far from the EU regulation targets and that there is no evidence that total silver eel escapement is increasing. Anthropogenic mortality also remains high. [8]

 

The need for further measures to aid eel recovery has been debated and implemented across and beyond the EU, but these are not sufficient. The Baltic Sea region is of particular importance since most eels here grow into large females, crucial to the success of spawning.


The loss of the European eel would mean more than the disappearance of a species, it would signal the collapse of an entire ecosystem connection from Europe’s rivers to the Sargasso Sea,” comments Aimi Hamberg, CCB Marine Policy Officer. “Protecting the eel now is about restoring balance to our waters”.


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 [9], yet fishing mortality for both glass eels and silver eels remain too high. [10]


Management of European eel continues to be contrary to scientific advice,” says Niki Sporrong, Senior Policy Officer & European eel Project Manager at FishSec. “Agreed EU objectives for the rebuilding of fish stocks and biodiversity are simply not applied to European eel. Urgent measures to minimise eel mortality must be implemented now, in both national inland, EU and international waters”.

 

—END—


FishSec – the Fisheries Secretariat is a politically independent non-profit organisation dedicated to

the protection and restoration of marine ecosystem services, with a focus on fisheries. FishSec was established in 2003 by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, WWF Sweden and the Swedish Anglers’ Association. More info at www.fishsec.org


Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB)  – Is a politically independent, non-profit association, with over 1 500 000 members in all countries around the Baltic Sea. The main goal of CCB is to promote the protection and improvement of the Baltic Sea environment and its natural resources for present and future generations. More info at: www.ccb.se 


***


NOTES TO EDITORS:


Press release on FishSec’s website is available here.

 

[1] 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.


[2] 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”.


[3] The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN, 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).


[4] 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 0.7 % of the baseline average and for “elsewhere Europe” 12.1 %. Yellow eel recruitment in 2024 was estimated to 14.3 %.


[5] Trends in landings  – reported commercial landings of yellow and silver eel continue to fall overall. In 2023, landings were 2,291 tonnes and in 2024, landings were around 2,055 tonnes, if we assume that Germany landed >200 tonnes based on landings from recent years. However, the Netherlands and stands out for significantly increasing reported commercial landings since the EU eel regulation was adopted.   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.


[6] EU glass eel landings –  in 2025,   reported   commercial   landings of glass eel, a fishery completely dominated by France, were at 57 tonnes. In France, landings have been increasing since 2010 and peaked at 54.5 tonnes in 2022. This year, France reported landings of 52.5 tonnes (prel. figures) – 94% 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.


[7] Recreational landings of yellow and silver eel are completely dominated by Germany.  Total reported recreational landings for 2022 – the last year with complete figures – was 551 tonnes. In Germany, recreational landings remain very high, higher than reported commercial landings, with 275 tonnes reported for 2022. This is more than half of all reported recreational landings in the EU (52%).


[8] 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 assessment that the European eel population remains well below any potential reference points, such as Blim.


[9] 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 2024: the Netherlands (479 t), France (319 t), Germany [extrapolated from latest reported landings of >200 t], Poland (152 t), Sweden (149 t) and Denmark (101 t). Outside of the EU, Turkey (280 t) also reported landings over 100 tonnes.


[10] 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 August 25, 2026
25 August 2026 - Following yesterday’s European Commission proposal for 2027 Baltic Sea fishing opportunities , environmental and angling organisations call on EU fisheries ministers not to treat the early signs of recovery for some Baltic Sea fish populations as a licence for steep quota increases. The latest scientific assessment on central Baltic herring shows some encouraging signs of improvement. This is welcome, but the changes are recent and do not mean that the population has fully recovered. An increase in biomass alone does not demonstrate that fish populations are healthy and resilient or justify higher catch limits. Fishing limits for small pelagic fish in the Baltic Sea have been set too high for years; last year’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council’s (AGRIFISH) decisions provide a recent example [1]. Herring proposals support recovery, but sprat’s wider ecosystem role must not be overlooked NGOs support the Commission’s proposed 2027 catch limit of 143,860 tonnes for central Baltic herring. Although 49% higher than last year, the proposal reflects the population’s recent growth, whilst also increasing the chances of the still fragile population to continue rebuilding. NGOs also cautiously welcome the proposed catch limit of 57,308 tonnes for Bothnian herring, a 3% increase, and the retention of the three- month spawning closure. Nevertheless, the population remains vulnerable and continues to be below healthy levels according to scientific advice [2]. An even more cautious fishing level would be needed in order to restore the population to the required healthy level. NGOs therefore strongly recommend a lower Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 45,544 tonnes. For sprat, the proposed catch limit of 291,590 tonnes and proposed removal of the spawning closure do not sufficiently account for the observed and documented misreporting issues, or for species’ vital role in the wider Baltic Sea ecosystem. “The Commission has taken a careful approach to herring, and the same is needed for sprat. Sprat may be small, but they play a vital role in the Baltic Sea as key prey for cod, salmon and seabirds. Fisheries ministers should set a lower catch limit that leaves enough sprat in the sea to help the fragile Baltic Sea ecosystem recover,” says Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer, Senior Fisheries Policy Advisor, Coalition Clean Baltic. Cod remains in crisis Scientists continue to advise zero catch for both eastern and western Baltic cod in 2027, a reminder of how depleted these populations remain. NGOs welcome the Commission's proposal to reduce cod bycatch quotas by 51% (to 211 tonnes) for eastern Baltic cod and by 88% (to 31 tonnes) for western Baltic cod, and to maintain the current conservation measures. However, to increase the chances for recovery for Baltic cod populations, EU decision makers must walk the talk. New legal obligations require the use of fishing gear in flatfish fisheries designed to avoid accidental catches of cod. With this gear now mandatory, cod bycatch quotas should be reduced and set as close as possible to the advised zero catch. For plaice, the Commission proposes to keep the same fishing opportunity as in 2026. However, cod is also caught as bycatch in the plaice fishery. NGOs therefore urge ministers to keep the plaice quota at a lower level, no higher than 1,593 tonnes for 2027, to help reduce accidental cod catches. "Fishing opportunities for 2027 should reflect the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation. As Member States prepare their national restoration plans, fishing limits must help rebuild fish populations and support the recovery of resilient marine ecosystems. Overfishing and neglecting an ecosystem-based approach would undermine restoration efforts," says Justyna Zajchowska, Fisheries Lead for WWF Baltic Sea Programme. E ncouraging salmon returns do not show recovery across all rivers Salmon returns to several large rivers in Sweden and Finland have been encouraging in 2026 [3]. However, several smaller northern Swedish populations remain at critically low levels, and the effects of the three previous poor years are expected to persist. The regional picture therefore remains uneven. NGOs welcome the Commission’s proposal not to increase fishing opportunities for Baltic salmon. However, for both the Main Basin salmon and the Gulf of Finland salmon, fishing should only take place on compensatory released salmon or salmon from rivers where stocks are at full reproductive capacity. “Good returns to the Torne and several other large rivers are welcome, but Baltic salmon cannot be judged by a few rivers alone. Many smaller populations remain at critical levels, and there is no room to increase fishing pressure on wild salmon,” says Thomas Johansson, Chairman, Östersjölaxälvar i Samverkan, and Secretary General, Baltic Salmon Fund. Fisheries ministers must turn promises into action for a real recovery of the Baltic Sea When agreeing the Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 in October, EU fisheries ministers must apply a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach and: Follow the Commission’s proposal on fishing opportunities for: Central Baltic herring, Western Baltic herring, Eastern Baltic cod, Western Baltic cod; Set lower, more precautionary and ecosystem-based fishing opportunities for: sprat, Bothnian herring, Gulf of Riga herring, plaice, Main Basin salmon, Gulf of Finland salmon; Under no circumstances set fishing opportunities for Bothnian herring higher than the Commission’s proposal. A higher level of fishing would lead to a decrease in stock size; Honour the October AGRIFISH 2025 commitment by agreeing to a clear timetable for ambitious, time-bound rebuilding plans for every depleted Baltic Sea fish population, based on rebuilding trajectories that restore populations to healthy levels as quickly as possible; and Ensure that Baltic Sea fishing opportunities are aligned with EU nature restoration objectives, so that public and private work and investments in marine restoration are not undermined by continued overfishing, insufficient rebuilding measures and lack of implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. In October 2025, the Commission and the eight Baltic EU Member States agreed [4] on the urgent need to rebuild Baltic Sea fish populations. The 2027 fishing-opportunities decision is the first real test of that commitment. Some improvements in Central Baltic herring and sprat show that recovery is possible ministers must now adopt fishing limits that secure that progress in the long term and give every depleted Baltic Sea fish population a credible chance to recover. - ENDS The full press release is available in PDF here . Extra info For the full joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027, please see: https://www.ccb.se/joint-ngo-recommendations-on-baltic-sea-fishing-opportunities-for-2027 Central Baltic herring remains below the level at which rebuilding measures should begin. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) expects the population to move only slightly above that level in 2027. Even then, fishing at the rate associated with maximum sustainable yield would leave a 36% probability of it falling below the threshold again in 2028 [5]. ICES also warns that the stock contains genetically distinct spawning groups and is therefore vulnerable to losses in genetic diversity and overall productivity [6]. The sprat population has grown and is now above key biomass reference points. However, fishing pressure is already at the level associated with maximum sustainable yield. ICES cautions that persistent misreporting of herring and sprat adds uncertainty to its assessment and advice [7]. Sprat is an important food source for cod, salmon and other marine wildlife [8], while ICES reports that industrial sprat fisheries can include substantial catches of herring [9]. Higher fishing pressure on sprat could therefore affect vulnerable herring populations as well as species that depend on sprat for food. Media contacts Beatrice Rindevall , Chairperson, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, ordforande@naturskyddsforeningen.se Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer , Senior Fisheries Policy Advisor, Coalition Clean Baltic, Cathrine@ccb.se Justyna Zajchowska , Fisheries Lead, WWF Baltic Sea Programme, jzajchowska@wwf.pl Joonas Plaan , Board member, Marine and Climate programme, Estonian Fund for Nature, joonas.plaan@elfond.ee Dr. Katja Hockun , Senior Expert Meeresschutz, Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V., hockun@duh.de Konrad Stralka , Executive Director, BalticWaters, konrad.stralka@balticwaters.org Magda Jentgena , Baltic Sea and Freshwater Programme Manager, Pasaules Dabas Fonds, mjentgena@pdf.lv Regan McEnroe , Chairperson, Nature and Youth Sweden, ordforande@faltbiologerna.se Tapani Veistola , Executive Director, Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto (Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), tapani.veistola@sll.fi Thomas Johansson , Chairman, Östersjölaxälvar i Samverkan, and Secretary General, Baltic Salmon Fund, thomas@balticsalmonfund.com *** Notes [1] See joint NGO press release on the outcome: https://www.ccb.se/fisheries-ministers-risk-breaking-eu-law-jeopardising-baltic-sea-recovery [2] ICES (2026). Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subdivisions 30 and 31 (Gulf of Bothnia). ICES Advice: Recurrent Advice. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30932087.v1 [3] Finnish monitoring of salmon returns: https://luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/numerotieto/raportit?panel=nousulohiseuranta&inits=REGION_ID%3D3&lang=en&state=REGION%3D3%3BREPORT%3Dfi%3Asalmon_run_monitoring%2F89%3BYEAR%3D2026 [4] Council of the European Union (2025), Draft minutes of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council , 27–28 October 2025, document 14646/25, p. 13, joint statement on the urgent need for rebuilding fisheries in the Baltic Sea. [5] ICES, Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga, pp. 1–2. The stock is currently below MSY Btrigger; projected biomass for 2027 is only 5% above it. Under the FMSY scenario, ICES estimates a 36% probability of biomass being below MSY Btrigger in 2028. https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Herring_i_Clupea_harengus_i_in_subdivisions_25-29_and_32_excluding_the_Gulf_of_Riga_central_Baltic_Sea_/30932081?file=65083161 [6] Ibid., p. 4. ICES identifies genetically distinct spawning components and warns of vulnerability to losses in genetic diversity and overall productivity. [7] ICES, Sprat in subdivisions 22–32: ICES advice . [8] Birgersson, L. and Pedersen Schirmer, C. (2025). Small fish with a big impact – a review of forage fish importance for a healthy Baltic Sea. FishSec (Fiskesekretariatet), Stockholm, Sweden. [9] ICES. 2026. Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). ICES Scientific Reports 8:39, section 7.2.5, p. 531. ICES reports that industrial sprat fisheries in several Baltic countries may include large bycatches of other species, predominantly herring. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.32455056
By CCB August 20, 2026
It is with great sadness that the Coalition Clean Baltic shares the news of the passing of Petro Hrytsyshyn, a long-standing colleague, environmentalist and true friend of the CCB family. The hospitality and warmth with which he embraced each and every one of us in Lviv will always be an example of genuine and close relation and lasting, professional friendship. For many years, Petro was Director of the Western Centre of the Ukrainian Branch of the International Centre for Scientific Culture – World Laboratory, one of CCB’s oldest member organisations in Ukraine. But it is the role he played in our family of environmental NGOs in the Baltic Sea Region that we will remember him for. Petro was one of the people who helped build, connect and sustain the international environmental community of which CCB is a part. For decades, he worked across borders and disciplines, bringing together scientific knowledge, environmental organisations, local communities and international partners around a shared belief that environmental challenges can be met through cooperation, practical solutions and persistence. Within CCB, Petro was a familiar and valued presence at conferences, seminars and joint activities over many years, representing Ukraine and the Western Centre while also contributing his own knowledge and experience to the wider Baltic Sea community. He hosted numerous CCB activities in Lviv and shared his expertise on the issues closest to him: water protection, sustainable sanitation, ecological safety and sustainable agriculture. He also represented the Western Centre in international environmental processes, contributing to discussions on environmental protection, water management and sustainable development. What made Petro's contribution especially important was that he understood environmental protection not only as a matter of policy or science, but as something that had to work in practice, on the ground. His work on ecological sanitation and wastewater management, for example, sought practical ways of reducing pollution and protecting water resources in rural areas of Ukraine. He continued this work into recent years. In 2023, Petro was among the experts contributing to CCB's analysis of the Greatest Water Management Challenges in the Baltic Sea Region, bringing the Ukrainian perspective into a broader regional assessment. More recently, he contributed to the Green Recovery Plan for the Ukrainian part of the Vistula River Basin, including the Western Bug and Syan sub-basins – work that reflected the qualities of his whole career: international cooperation, practical environmental knowledge and a commitment to the future of Ukraine's rivers and communities. For those of us who worked with him, however, his legacy is not only projects, publications and meetings. In a network such as CCB, people are the foundation of cooperation, and Petro was one of those people who kept the connections alive through changing political circumstances, new environmental challenges and difficult times that Ukraine faces as a result of Russia’s unprecedented war of aggression. He represented a generation of environmental professionals and civil society activists who understood that lasting environmental progress depends on solidarity, openness and the willingness to work together across borders. His long commitment to cooperation between Ukrainian and European environmental organisations was an important part of that legacy. CCB is grateful for the many years of cooperation with Petro, for his knowledge and commitment, for his hospitality and friendship, and for the bridges he helped build between people and organisations working for a healthier environment. Our thoughts are with his family, friends, colleagues and all those who had the privilege of knowing and working with him. Petro Hrytsyshyn 1951–2026 May the memory of Petro Mykhaylovych remain with all of us who continue the work to which he devoted so much of his life.