Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of NGOs recommends drastic reductions in fishing quotas for the Baltic Sea in 2024, including zero-catch limits for several cod and herring stocks. The authors argue that current single-species management fails to account for ecosystem dynamics, bycatch, and climate change, urging the EU to implement stricter monitoring and selective gear requirements.

A coalition of NGOs recommends strict Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for Baltic Sea fish stocks for 2022, emphasizing the need to adhere to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and the precautionary approach. The document calls for zero catches for several critically depleted stocks, including eastern and western Baltic cod and western Baltic spring spawning herring. It advocates for an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, increased monitoring to combat the failure of the Landing Obligation, and improved transparency in the EU's decision-making process.

A coalition of NGOs urges the EU to set 2023 Baltic Sea fishing limits at or below scientific advice, specifically recommending zero catches for several cod and herring stocks. The document argues that current management fails to account for ecosystem dynamics, climate change, and widespread non-compliance with the Landing Obligation, calling for mandatory remote electronic monitoring and a transition away from bottom trawling.

The joint NGO response argues that EU fisheries management fails to fully implement the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), leading to missed deadlines for ending overfishing. The authors contend that Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are routinely set above scientific advice, particularly for depleted stocks caught as bycatch, which creates a cycle of overexploitation and 'choke' situations. They recommend setting fishing opportunities well below the 'headline' scientific advice from ICES to account for ecosystem dynamics and uncertainties. Key demands include the full implementation of the Landing Obligation, the roll-out of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), and the rejection of any revisions to the Western Mediterranean multiannual plan (MAP) that would weaken its objectives.

The document argues that EU fisheries ministers must adhere to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to end overfishing. It provides specific TAC recommendations for cod, herring, sprat, plaice, and salmon, emphasizing a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to protect biodiversity and restore marine foodweb functionality in the Baltic Sea.

The document argues that current fisheries management in the Baltic Sea has failed to meet EU legal requirements, such as achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, and calls for a more precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for 2025. It recommends setting catch limits well below ICES headline advice to allow for rapid stock recovery, particularly for collapsed cod populations and declining herring and sprat stocks. The NGOs advocate for the implementation of robust rebuilding plans, the use of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) to combat widespread misreporting and non-compliance with the Landing Obligation, and the prioritization of low-impact coastal fisheries in quota allocations.

The report provides a comprehensive analysis of climate change projections for Estonia through 2100 and outlines a strategic adaptation plan to 2030. It identifies key vulnerabilities across eight priority sectors—including health, land use, nature, bioeconomy, economy, society, infrastructure, and energy—and proposes specific goals, metrics, and measures to mitigate risks such as sea-level rise, extreme weather, and ecosystem shifts. The plan estimates a total implementation cost of 43.7 million euros between 2017 and 2030.

A study by SEI Tallinn analyzed 175 agriculture-related water policy recommendations for the Baltic Sea region issued between 2014 and the time of the report. The analysis found that nearly one-third of recommendations focused on governance, and many were too general or lacked a clear addressee. The authors argue that for recommendations to effectively combat eutrophication—which is driven in part by agriculture contributing 45% of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic Sea—they must be more specific regarding the target actor, the desired action, and the intended result.

The document examines Estonia's agro-environmental targets set within the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, the Water Act, and the Nitrate Vulnerable Area programme. While chemical loads have decreased since 1990, challenges remain regarding fertiliser efficiency, manure management, and institutional coordination. The brief recommends integrating policies on the marine environment and water courses, establishing a permanent commission for water policy between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, and improving advisory services for small and medium producers.

The document examines Sweden's approach to agri-environmental goals, highlighting a preference for voluntary measures and a robust governance structure involving public, private, and civil society actors. It identifies key challenges, including contradictory policy decisions—such as the removal of the nitrate tax despite endorsing Baltic Sea Action Plan targets—and a monitoring system that prioritizes quantitative measures of implementation over qualitative environmental outcomes.

The report argues that the ocean is a victim of global market failure, where the true value of its ecosystems and services is ignored. It identifies six primary threats—ocean acidification, warming, hypoxia, sea level rise, pollution, and overexploitation of resources—and emphasizes that these stressors often interact synergistically. The authors quantify the 'cost of inaction' by comparing low and high emission scenarios, estimating that avoidable damages could exceed US$ 1 trillion per year by 2100. The document advocates for a shift from traditional cost-benefit analysis to a precautionary, insurance-based risk model and calls for integrated, cross-scale ocean governance to build ecosystem resilience.

The document critiques a transport development plan for lacking substantive analysis, failing to properly address transboundary environmental impacts, and omitting key climate-related metrics such as fuel and emissions. It argues that the plan relies too heavily on referencing other strategies without providing concrete evaluations of impact or proportionality.