Try to have a conversation in a noisy bar – that‘s the situation a whale is constantly living in

CCB • June 30, 2022

Underwater noise – an issue that is more dangerous for marine animals that we might think

30 June 2022 - At the United Nations Ocean Conference 2022, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), altogether with Ocean Care and BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany organized the side event “Reduce Ocean Noise & Save Our Ocean”, which was the only event focused on such topic and brought a hall full of listeners. The event started by listening the recordings of the harbor porpoise sounds and the noise of only one bigger ship passing by – the audience could evaluate how loud it sounds and how it spreads under the water.

Marine animals “cannot shut the window”

The Representative from the German Environmental Agency and Former Chair of HELCOM, Lilian Busse, made the opening speech drawing the attention to the updated Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), which has more than 200 actions set to achieve a ‘good environmental status’ in the Baltic Sea and 9 of them are meant to minimize the issue of underwater noise.


“This is the easy problem, because when you end noise pollution – it stops immediately. As you know, it is not the same with hazardous substances or plastic pollution”- stressed Lilian Busse.

Bettina Taylor, from the organization BUND - Friends of the Earth Germany, explained why we need to reduce underwater noise.


“We know very well, how noise affects us. We cannot concentrate or sleep when there is noise. Underwater noise comes either from shipping, or from big underwater explosions, seismic surveys that are made to explore ocean floor in the search of oil and gas - then it’s called impulsive noise. In the 1990s, a researcher did an experiment by putting a loud acoustic device in the Southern Indian Ocean: the sound spread around the world to the East coasts of South and North America so as to the coasts of Australia,” – said Bettina Taylor.


She noted that marine animals cannot shut the window when it is noisy – they simply cannot escape that. The noise can disturb an animal – but it also poses a risk of dying if or, for example, an animal is so stressed out that it stops hunting. Moreover, noise underwater accumulates, different sounds strengthens the effect of one another.


Bettina Taylor urged to act to reduce underwater noise, as there is already enough scientific data to prove that is a threat to marine animals. She proposed to ban seismic surveys completely because – “when we phase out coal, there is no need to explore for new deposits of gas and oil“.


150 species are affected by underwater noise

Afterwards, Sharon Livermore, Program Officer at IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) talked about how dangerous for marine animals is noise caused by shipping.


The propeller of the ship and the water movement (air bubbles) usually causes noise. In recent years, global underwater noise has risen by 20 decibels. “The noise spreads easily, especially through cold water environments and at the moment it dominates the background noise” – said S. Livermore.


This noise is stronger and dominates the sounds that marine animals receive and spread by themselves: to locate, to find a mate, to hunt, to feed their calves. That is why underwater noise poses a threat not only to individual animals, but to entire populations.


“A study showed that between 1992 and 2012 the number of ships travelling across the oceans grew by 60%” – noted S. Livermore. – If we count only the Indian Ocean, it’s a 300 % increase in ship traffic. The reason why shipping has increased in this way, it’s the growth of international trade. But we must understand that with increased shipping traffic, air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution rise altogether.”


Approximately, 150 marine species are affected by underwater noise, causing increased stress and behavioural changes. The most acoustically sensitive species are whales, dolphins and porpoises. Underwater noise can affect feeding behaviour, as well as their movements and the level of stress in these animals.


„Remember trying to have a conversation in a noisy bar. We all know how difficult it is. We have to raise our voice to be heard and we can barely hear ourselves. This is the constant life of a whale. Sound is their primary sense – if they cannot detect a mate, it has a negative impact for the population“ – noted S. Livermore.


The easiest solution – to reduce the speed of large ships

Whales have the so called ‚acoustic bubble‘ around them. It‘s the area from which they can receive their sounds or be heard themselves. Some studies in the North Atlantic Ocean have shown that the acoustic bubble of the whales had shrunk exponentially after the industrialization of the Ocean.


Another example was the researches made after the 9/11 events in the United States of America, when all the shippings near the coast of New York coast stopped after the terrorist attack for security reasons. Marine scientists used this opportunity and found out that the amount of stress related to hormones in whales decreased sharply during this period.


„This cannot be explained by anything else: shipping causes biological response (stress hormones) in whales“ – noted S. Livermore. As underwater noise can spread long distances, an international law is needed to address this problem.


„There are immediate solutions that could be approved very quickly – such as reducing the speed of ships by 10%. If we can reduce the speed of the ships – we could reach a 40% reduction of their noise” – said S. Livermore. She added that this measure could also help to reduce ship collisions with whales and greenhouse gas emissions – so it’s three benefits for the environment from just one solution. More complex solutions can be changing the technical features and the design of the new ships to make them more silent.


First area where changes can be adopted – corridor for migration in the Mediterranean Sea

Another speaker at the event, the representative from the OceanCare organization, Carlos Bravo, talked about the area-based noise reduction measures, which were already implemented in one of the coasts in Spain, in the Medittereanean Sea.


“In recent years there were many oil and gas projects started in the Spanish Mediterranean waters. But after the opposition of the private sector, the civil society and non-governmental organizations, stressing the harm to the environment and the negative impact for climate change, the Spanish government banned the search of any new oil and gas fields” – said C. Bravo.


After this success, migration corridor, meant for penguins and other species, was created near the coast of Catalonia, called a cetacean migration corridor. The area covers 46 000 square kilometres.


Ocean Care communicates with government to limit the speed of ships in this area would no more than 10 knots. C. Bravo hopes that Italy, France, Monaco, and other countries that are situated around the corridor would also adopt this ship speed limitation. Although the threat of impulsive noise by search of oil and gas fields was removed, intense shipping continues, with 24 passenger ferries, travelling from Catalonia and Valencia to the Balearic Islands, plus a great number of cargo ships reaching big ports, such as Barcelona and Valencia.


“Shipping is an important way of transportation, but it absolutely rely on fossil fuels. The report issued by the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Environmental Agency in September last year showed that underwater noise has doubled in the period from 2014 to 2019. It is an increasing problem. There are, of course, technical measures that can be implemented, but we are promoting the most cost-effective and immediate solution: speed reduction” – explained C. Bravo.   


What can be changed? The design of the ship, but not the propeller

The event included also a panel discussion, with  Frederik Haag, (IMO), Bev Mackenzie, (BIMCO), Mattias Rust (Swedish Ministry of Infrastructure) and Carlos Bravo (OceanCare).


Bev Mackenzie said that they try to measure the noise, because noise is a form of energy, and ships do not want to lose it. BIMCO is collaborating with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and is willing to implement the guidelines this organization will set. BIMCO is also looking forward to implement the new design of the newly built ships in order to reduce the noise they make. „But it‘s really hard to change propellers or other technical parts of the existing old ships, so I think we should search for a combination of design changes for new ships and operational measures for the old ones“ – said Bev Mackenzie.


Frederic Haag, representative of International Maritime organization (IMO), said that the measures for noise reduction are not yet implemented in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), but they could be implemented, when the stakeholders will agree and decide which of the measures would work best. „We rely on shipping to receive our medicines and goods, so we need a measure which is appropriate“ – added Frederic Haag.


Mattias Rust, from the Swedish Ministry of Infrastructure was honest: the underwater noise issue is on the agenda of HELCOM and the European Commission, but for the Ministers of EU countries it still has to reach a higher level of urgency, there is a need for more data provided, showing the severe harms for marine animals.


„Our members are willing to support such measures, applied internationally. National regulations are challenging for shipping: ships don‘t necessarily keep the same routes, don‘t always have the same crew. We unite 60% of the cargo ships, but if the rest of the ships will not follow the new rules because it’s cheaper, the problem will not be solved”, - said Bev Mackenzie from BIMCO.


Underwater noise – measures are almost ready, but we also need awareness raising

So why the measure of reduction of the speed cannot be approved immediately?


Frederic Hag explained that when they are trying to make a new rule globally, it takes longer than one could expect. But as IMO is now reviewing the guidelines for ships, it’s easy to take this “one step further”, although that it is beneficial both for environment and economically.


„Shipping industry is a commercial activity. And in my last meetings I‘ve learned that even when they want to adopt various green initiatives and they offer them for their clients, clients do not buy it. That‘s why I think we must invest more in awareness raising“ – added M. Rust.


***

Article written by Inga Labutytė-Atkočaitienė, Lithuanian Fund for Nature and CCB Communication Group Coordinator

When is management of European eel going to catch up with scientific advice?

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.

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

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.