Too many concessions in agreed eel fishing closures makes measure ineffective

The EU Fisheries Council have agreed to a roll-over of current eel fishing closures in EU waters to protect the 2026/2027 eel migrations. Regrettably the well-intentioned provision now contains so many derogations that the measure is not effective. The ban on recreational eel fishing in EU waters remain. In the Mediterranean region, measures apply in all waters, including freshwater, in line with the GFCM Recommendation [1] on eel.

Stockholm, 15 December 2025 - In light of the lack of any significant signs of recovery in the critically endangered European eel population following the adoption of the EU Eel Regulation [2], the EU agreed in 2017 to introduce time-limited eel fishing closures to protect eel migration. These measures initially consisted of three-month closures aimed at preventing fishing of silver eels during their spawning migration to the Sargasso Sea.

Since then, the closures have been expanded to also cover the glass eel migration and complemented by a full ban on recreational fishing in EU waters. Their duration has also been extended to a total of six months (or three + three months). On paper, this represents a comprehensive conservation measure intended to support the reproduction and recruitment of one of the EU’s most depleted fish stocks. Today, less than 10% of the original eel population remains, and in the northern range, less than 1%.

However, the current version of the closures that will apply in the 2026/2027 eel fishing season is riddled with exemptions that undermine their conservation purpose. Under the regulation adopted by the Council, all Member States may permit 30 days of eel fishing during the main migration period under a derogation [3]. Fishing under the derogation can be allowed as 30 consecutive days, but also to be spread out on a day-by-day basis, enabling some Member States to tailor them to the existing fishing patterns and selectively allow fishing during conditions when eels tend to migrate, such as the moon cycle.

“Once again, scientific advice is being ignored, and fisheries of this critically endangered species are being allowed to continue. This is both alarming and deeply disappointing. We now appeal to all the Baltic Sea Member States to at least ensure that the mandatory EU fisheries closure period is regionally coordinated, does not include exemptions for fisheries during the peak migratory period, and is placed at a time when it genuinely protects the eel during its spawning migration”, comments Aimi Hamberg, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) Marine Policy Officer.

For commercial glass eel fisheries, on top of the 30 days there is a further derogation of 50 days of fishing provided that it is for the purpose of restocking, bringing the total number of potential fishing days during peak migration up to 80 days. Depending on how the derogations are used, this means that fishing can continue pretty much unabated throughout the peak migration, providing little protection for recruitment of new eels into European waters.

“This is of particular concern as the EU requirement for full traceability in the glass eel trade is not working. There is no overall system in place to ensure all the eels fished for restocking are actually used for restocking", says Niki Sporrong, Senior Policy Officer & European Eel Project Manager at FishSec.

Regionally, eel migration times may vary significantly with eels further away from the Sargasso Sea starting migration earlier. The provision therefore requires the Baltic Member States to coordinate their closures to “ensure an effective protection” of eels migrating from the Baltic Sea into the North Sea. Baltic Member States have failed to do this since 2023 when this was first introduced, resulting in a fall-back uniform closure from 15 September to 15 March – too late to provide effective protection in most Baltic Member States.

The eel fishing closures can also be tailored to the local fishing area – i.e. it doesn’t have to apply the same across the country – making it possible to tailor the exemptions from the closures to local fishing practices.

With European eel red listed as Critically Endangered since 2008, and scientific advice clearly stating that zero catch is the only precautionary option in line with the EU Common Fisheries Policy, the European Commission has tried to tailor the eel fishing closures to provide effective protection. This followed the failure to introduce a full fishing closure in 2018. As a result, closures have been extended to six months, and strengthened through wording like “prohibition”, “shall cover the month of peak migration”, “peak month for every geographical area”.

In its proposal for 2023, the Commission explicitly underlined the conservation purpose of this approach, stating: “A six-month closure, if set during the appropriate period, would cover the vast majority of migrating glass and silver eels and therefore provide a higher level of protection of the eel stock in the waters covered by the closure”.

“While well-intentioned, the eel fishing closures have in some countries become something similar to “paper parks. It looks good: six months without fishing to protect eels at key life stages. But push back from Member States has weakened the provision, shifting wording and time periods, inserting exemptions to a point where they are not effective, adds Niki Sporrong - With the right intention, you can still protect eel migration fully but what we see is that this is often not the case”.

The ban on recreational fisheries in marine waters remains in place. However, this partial protection does not meet the strong scientific advice calling for zero catches of all eel life stages in all habitats. After almost two decades of EU-wide recovery and conservation measures, there are no signs of population recovery. Only three EU countries – Ireland, Malta and Slovenia – have fully prohibited all fishing for the European eel, and total landings in 2024 remained over 2,000 tonnes.

_END

NOTES

[1] The GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) manages European eel through a multiannual plan.

[2] Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel.

[3] Art. 13.4 in the proposal COM (2025) 662.

For more information:

< Older Post

Newer Post >

NGOs Welcome European Commission Decision to Stick With Common Fisheries Policy in 2027 Workplan, Urging Attention on Full Implementation

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.

NGOs urge stronger action as 2027 Baltic Sea fishing limits fall short of securing full recovery of fish populations

By CCB • October 27, 2026

27 October 2026 , Luxembourg - EU fisheries ministers increased central Baltic and Bothnian herring catch limits beyond the European Commission’s proposals and significantly increased the sprat catch limit, falling short of the precaution needed to protect the role of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea food web. The Council also rejected proposed cuts to accidental catches of severely depleted cod and western Baltic herring populations. NGOs warn that fishing limits remain too high and urge EU ministers to follow the agreement with concrete plans to rebuild depleted fish populations. Herring: further measures needed to safeguard fragile recovery and protect vulnerable populations EU fisheries ministers increased the catch limit for central Baltic herring to 165 228 tonnes, a 71% increase compared with 2026. The population has shown signs of improvement after years of depletion. However, the central Baltic herring population remains vulnerable, and rebuilding must restore healthy age and size structures as well as overall abundance. Although below the scientific headline catch advice, the Council’s decision exceeds the Commission’s proposal, which was more precautionary and recovery-oriented and should have been followed by the ministers. “Ministers have recognised the need for caution, but still allowed more herring to be caught than the Commission proposed. These vulnerable populations need a stronger chance of lasting recovery, with clear rebuilding targets, a timetable for reaching them and measures that are implemented and enforced ,” said Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer, Senior Fisheries Policy Advisor at Coalition Clean Baltic. For Bothnian herring , ministers retained the three-month spawning closure but increased the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by 12% , despite the population remaining below healthy levels. The Commission’s proposed TAC for this fish population was already a compromise between population rebuilding and maintaining fishing opportunities. The agreed higher TAC poses a risk to the recovery of the Bothnian herring population and creates increasing uncertainty for the industry. “ Fisheries decisions must also account for the risks to fish population recovery. Even catch limits within the ICES advice range can leave stocks at risk of remaining below the biomass levels that should trigger recovery measures. Fishing opportunities must give depleted populations a real chance to recover to healthy level s,” said Beatrice Rindevall, Chairperson of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. The Gulf of Riga herring TAC was also set above NGOs’ recommendations, with an increase of 11% compared with 2026, despite the recent decline in its spawning biomass and its importance to the Baltic food web. Lower limits for this fish population would have better supported population health and long-term resilience. Sprat: recovery must extend to the Baltic Sea food web The sprat agreement remains a significant concern. The Council’s decision, in line with the Commission’s proposal, to increase the sprat catch limit by 44% to 291 590 tonnes exceeds the level NGOs recommended. Although the population has increased, the agreed limit does not sufficiently account for sprat’s importance as prey for cod, salmon, seabirds and other marine wildlife, persistent catch misreporting or the risk of catching vulnerable herring alongside sprat. “ Herring and sprat are vital to the Baltic Sea ecosystem. When setting fishing opportunities, decision makers must leave enough prey in the water to support predators like cod and salmon, to rebuild ecosystem health and align with the EU’s nature restoration ambitions ,” said Justyna Zajchowska, Fisheries Lead for WWF Baltic Sea Programme. Salmon: no increase in catch limits, but stronger protection needed NGOs welcome the decision not to increase salmon fishing opportunities. However, fishing should be restricted to compensatory hatchery-released salmon or salmon from rivers where populations are at full reproductive capacity. Fishing on vulnerable wild populations must be avoided and, if returning salmon numbers are insufficient, additional adaptive management measures should be deployed immediately, considering the impact of recent poor spawning runs. “ Good returns to some large rivers are encouraging, but they do not demonstrate recovery across the Baltic region. Many smaller river populations remain in serious difficulty. We need fishing restrictions that protect those vulnerable salmon throughout their migration and allow enough fish to reach their spawning grounds ,” said Thomas Johansson, Chairman of Östersjölaxälvar i Samverkan and Secretary General of the Baltic Salmon Fund. Cod, western Baltic herring and plaice: Council misses opportunity to curb bycatch Both Baltic cod populations and western Baltic herring remain severely depleted. Targeted cod fisheries remain closed, while ministers retained the small-scale fisheries exemption for western Baltic herring. Yet ministers agreed bycatch quotas well above the Commission’s proposals for 2027 and at the same level as 2026, falling short of the protection sought by NGOs. For all three populations, the agreed bycatch quotas permit continued catches despite ICES advice for zero catch. The Council’s decision to increase the plaice TAC to 11,237 tonnes , well above the level NGOs recommended, missed an opportunity to secure a reduction in accidental cod catches. The decision also does not reflect the very low reported landings of this species. Declining weight and condition of plaice also warrant greater caution. The TAC must be combined with effective enforcement of mandatory selective gear to reduce cod bycatch and the implementation of the landing obligation. Annual fishing limits must support lasting recovery The Council’s decisions on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 are not ambitious enough to secure restoration of all Baltic Sea fish populations. These decisions should be seen in the context of last year’s joint commitment by the European Commission and Baltic Sea Member States to seek dedicated scientific advice from ICES on rebuilding pathways for fish populations. In the absence of such rebuilding-oriented advice, and whilst we are waiting for it, decisions should be more cautious and based on the available recovery-focused catch options provided by the scientists in their traditional advice. Fisheries management must also support EU marine restoration objectives and the achievement of good environmental status in the Baltic Sea. Restoring fish populations and food webs is essential to the recovery of the sea itself and to the long-term future of Baltic fisheries and the coastal communities that depend on them. ENDS *** Further information: Link to Council decision Link to Commission’s proposal Link to Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 Media contact: 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 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 .