Major coalition complains to the EU about Lynetteholm blocking water flow

CCB • July 13, 2022

17 organisations from the Baltic Sea countries with more than 1.5 million members are now going to the EU to stop the Lynetteholm blockage of the water flow to the Baltic Sea.

Photo: Excavator removes sludge in connection with the establishment of Lynetteholm. Photo: Ariel Storm / the Climate Movement in Denmark.

The construction of Lynetteholm in Copenhagen could literally be a plug in the Øresund, blocking the flow of water to the Baltic Sea. An independent assessment by the Dutch company Deltares shows that it may block water flow by up to 0.5%, which can have significant negative consequences for the marine environment. Therefore, 17 organisations from the Baltic Sea countries, counting more than 1.5 million members, are now joining forces to petition the EU to stop the project:


"Blocking the water flow into the Sound could have major consequences for the ecosystems of the Baltic Sea. Therefore, it is imperative that the government consults the countries concerned before proceeding with the project. Time is against us because work on phase 1 of the project is continuing, and if the project is not put on hold, it may soon be too late.", says Frederik Sandby, head of the secretariat of the Climate Movement in Denmark and initiator of the coalition together with the Danish Society for Nature Conservation and the Coalition Clean Baltic.


As even minimal changes in the water flow into the Baltic Sea can affect the entire Baltic Sea and thus the marine environment of all the countries around the Baltic Sea, a long-standing practice in Denmark and understanding among the Baltic Sea countries has ensured that no large construction projects can restrict water flow into the Baltic Sea - an understanding also referred to as a 'zero solution'.


Major negative impacts on the marine environment
In the petition, the signatory organisations call for the project to be modified to ensure a zero solution for saltwater flow into the Baltic Sea, that a new consultation is carried out among all the Baltic Sea countries and that the project is put on hold until such consultation has taken place. It is hoped that through this request, the matter will be advanced and raised in the relevant international fora and with the Danish government.


"After pressure from the Swedish authorities, in particular, the Danish Minister of Transport thankfully decided to stop dumping contaminated sludge in the Køge Bay - but the environmental impact of contaminated sludge on the Baltic Sea is 'peanuts' compared to the environmental impact of reduced saltwater flow. That is why we hope that the Danish government will again listen to its neighbours and safeguard the Baltic Sea for the future", says Michael Løvendal Kruse, chairman of the Danish Society for Nature Conservation's Stevns branch.


Breaking with previous practices
With the approval of the Lynetteholm project, the Danish state has deviated from previous practice in relation to a zero solution, as the project could block the water flow into the Baltic Sea by up to 0.5%.


Under the UN Espoo Convention and the EU's SEA/EIA Directives, the authorities of a country are obliged to consult all countries that may be environmentally affected by a construction project unless "significant transboundary impact can be excluded with certainty". The coalition behind the letter believes that this cannot be ruled out with certainty and therefore demands that the Lynetteholm project be put on hold until a consultation of all Baltic Sea countries has been carried out, and the Danish state has secured a zero solution for the project. The coalition, therefore, believes that it is imperative that the project is suspended immediately while all relevant countries and organisations are consulted.


"Unilateral Danish adoption of the Lynetteholm project breaks with decades of good cooperation between the Baltic Sea countries on the Baltic Sea environment. This is why the project will have to be stopped until all relevant countries are consulted," says Mikhail Durkin, head of the Secretariat of the organisation Coalition Clean Baltic.


The project was adopted despite Swedish criticism
So far, only Sweden is being consulted under the Espoo Convention. But although the then Swedish Minister for the Environment and Climate Per Bolund, on 6 May 2021, in a direct letter to the Danish Minister of the Environment, very clearly requested that Denmark not adopt the construction law until the environmental impacts of the project had been sufficiently studied and Espoo negotiations concluded, this was ignored, and the construction law was adopted by a majority in the Danish Parliament on 4 June 2021.


With this initiative, the coalition is trying to gather political support in the Baltic Sea countries to slow down the project. After intense debate, the Danish government stated in May 2022 that the possibility of technically making a zero solution for the Lynetteholm project will be investigated. To ensure that this happens, the coalition believes that public awareness and political pressure must be maintained.


Margrete Auken pulls the EU into the case
EU MEP Margrete Auken, who has already helped the case in the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, is now trying to mobilise the Commission by questioning the legality of the way the Lynetteholm project was done.


In an email to her green EU colleagues from the other Baltic countries, she also urges them to put pressure on the Danish government to ensure that all rules are respected.


"At the time of writing, Denmark is undertaking a construction project that will most likely reduce the water flow into the Baltic Sea and seriously damage its delicate marine ecosystems!" writes Margrete Auken and adds, "The Baltic Sea countries have a long tradition of working together to protect the Baltic Sea's fragile marine environment, and we believe that with a united, coordinated approach we can make an impression on the Danish government."


***

Read the full letter here.


***

Results of an independent review on Lynetteholm's blocking effect published in 2023 (article translated from the Danish magazine Ingeniøren).

 


The coalition consists of:
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Karin Lexén, Secretary General
The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. Tapani Veistola, Executive Director
BUND Schleswig Holstein. Ole Eggers, Director
Green Foundation GAIA, Poland. Jakub Skorupski, dr. inz.
The Lithuanian Fund for Nature. Edmundas Greimas, Director
WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme. Johanna Fox, Director
Greenpeace Nordic. Mads Flarup Christensen, Executive Director
Deutscher Angelfischerverband. Florian Stein, Fachreichleiter
The Swedish Anglers Association. Sten Frohm, Secretary General
Danmarks Sportsfiskerforbund. Lars Rasmussen, CEO
Dansk Ornitologisk Forening / BirdLife Denmark. Egon Østergaard, Chairman
Dansk Sejlunion. Christian Lerche, Director
Dansk Jægerforbund/Danish Hunters Association. Claus Lind Christensen, Chairman
Byen for Borgerne – Stop Lynetteholm. Lone Johnsen.


As well as the initiators:
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation. Maria Reumert Gjerding, President
The Climate Movement in Denmark. Frederik Sandby, Head of Secretariat
Coalition Clean Baltic. Mikhail Durkin, Executive Secretary.


For further information, please contact:
Michael Løvendal Kruse The Danish Society for Nature Conservation
michael@dn.dk (+45) 3154 0601


Frederik Roland Sandby The Climate Movement in Denmark
sandby@klimabev.dk (+45) 2295 4047

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.