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 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
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)