Russian-German coalition demands to stop nuclear waste movement from Germany to Russia

CCB • July 8, 2020

# Russia is not a nuclear waste dump! #

Saint-Petersburg – Berlin, July 2020 – The appeal to the authorities of Russia and Germany was signed by 47 national, regional and municipal non-governmental associations of Russia, Germany and the Netherlands.  The appeal is signed by regional and municipal deputies of the nuclear regions of Russia, as well as by experts and citizens who live along the rail route of dangerous cargo (about 2,500 km) from the port of Ust‑Luga in the Leningrad Region to the Closed Administrative Territorial Unit of Novouralsk (Sverdlovsk Region).

On July 01, 2020 at 05:33 the cargo vessel Mikhail Dudin once again delivered another 600 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Under the contract, 12,000 tons of UF6 – chemically aggressive radioactive material – may be transferred from Germany to Russia by 2022. 

Olaf Bandt , Chairman of the Organization for Environment Protection and Nature Conservation of Germany (BUND): “The federal government stands by while part of the unresolved nuclear waste problem moves quietly and secretly to Russia. German nuclear waste should not be disposed of in other countries, putting lives of people in danger. Germany must finally complete the nuclear phase-out. Germany must finally complete the abandonment of nuclear energy, but as long as the uranium enrichment plant in Gronau and the fuel cell plant in Lingen are allowed to work, this is out of the question”.

Mathias Eikoff, Muenster Alliance Against Nuclear Facilities: “The federal government allows Urenco and its shareholders RWE and E. ON to take nuclear waste abroad: it’s very cost-effective, but extremely irresponsible – manufacturers and profiteers have no personal responsibility. Therefore, we demand from the federal government a mandatory and complete freeze on the export of uranium waste and enriched uranium from Gronau and fuel cells from Lingen.”

Oleg Bodrov, Chairman of the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, Decomatom network : “If the German nuclear industry does not have an economically and socially acceptable technology for processing depleted uranium hexafluoride, it means it is waste. According to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal of 22 March 1989, the German economy must find a solution to safely store these materials in the territory of Germany. Export of depleted uranium hexafluoride to Russia is export of the problem, but not a solution to this problem”.

Aija Caune , Chairperson of the Coalition Clean Baltic – CCB: “ CCB, the network of 24 environmental NGOs from 11 countries of the Baltic Sea Region, throughout its 30 years of work has repeatedly raised concerns about safety of nuclear installations operating in the BSR. We are calling on both governments of the Russian Federation and Germany to stop shipping nuclear waste across the Baltic Sea and gradually phase-out nuclear facilities as posing immediate risk to natural environment ”.

Andrey Talevlin , Chairman of the regional environmental organization ZA PRIRODU (FOR NATURE), Chelyabinsk, Coordinator of Decomatom network: “Russia should sign the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and ratify the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. In this case, it will be possible to ensure equal safety standards for Russia with the countries whose businesses are trying to implement joint nuclear projects in our country”.

Vitaly Servetnik , Co-chair of the Russian Scio-Econlogical Union: “ It is irresponsible and unfair to move such a problem to a country with lower environmental standards and public control. Rosatom must stop increasing their profits by turning a huge Russian territory into a dump. This crime against future generations of Russians must stop immediately”.

Marina Ljubushkina , Head of the public reception office of the Spravedlivaya Rossiya ( Justice Russia) political party in Kingisepp District, Leningrad Region: “ The reloading of toxic radioactive substances to rail cars in the port of Ust-Luga and their transportation through the radiation-contaminated “Chernobyl” territories of the Leningrad region creates additional health risks for thousands of residents along the train route. This is illegal and not fair! Public discussions should be organized with participation of the public concerned and the municipality of Kingisepp District to justify the license for handling radioactive materials during the transshipment in the port of Ust-Luga!”

Nikolay Kuzmin, Chairman of the Permanent Commission on Ecology and Nature Management of the Legislative Assembly of the Leningrad Region, Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Region: “A dditional regional legislative norms should be adopted in order to ensure the radiation safety of the inhabitants of the Leningrad region and provide for the real participation in decision-making of the elected deputies and the interested public representatives”.

Russian environmental and human rights organizations speak out against the import of uranium radioactive waste into Russia. More than 30 organizations signed a collective statement in November 2019.

In January 2020, environmentalists the signatures of 70,000 Russians against the importation of uranium radioactive waste to the German Ministry of the Environment.

In March 2020, residents of the coast of the Gulf of Finland who live in close proximity to the transshipment and transport facilities of hazardous cargo near the port of Ust-Luga expressed their protest against transportation of nuclear waste through the Leningrad region.  

The text of the PR and the Public Appeal to German and Russian authorities are available here.

We thank our colleagues from Germany and the Russian Socio-Ecological Union for their effective cooperation and support.

Contacts:
Oleg Bodrov
Tel. +7 921 74 52 631
bodrov@greenworld.org.ru

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 Council for 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 the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (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 the recruitment index for “Elsewhere Europe” at 6.4 % and North Sea 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 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 recruitment index 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.