# State of implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons - Atlantic Region 2024

Eric Rochard, Stephanie Popp

► To cite this version:

Eric Rochard, Stephanie Popp. State of implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons - Atlantic Region 2024. European Commission; Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection; DREAL Nouvelle-Aquitaine; Ministère de la Transition écologique et de la Cohésion des territoires; French Biodiversity Office; Adour-Garonne Water Agency; Port de Bordeaux; NGO MIGADO; French National Committee for Marine Fisheries and Sea Farming; (Netherlands) Ministry of Agriculture Nature and Food Quality; Royal Dutch Angling Alliance; NGO Ark Nature; Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Federal Institute of Hydrology; Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries. 2025, pp.26. hal-05213647

HAL Id: hal-05213647

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05213647v1

Submitted on 18 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

European
Commission

# State of implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons

## ATLANTIC REGION 2024

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Updated version: June 2025
Includes 2 annexes
# State of implementation of
the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons –
Atlantic Region 2024

Authors: Eric Rochard, Stephanie Popp

Reviewers: Joern Gessner, Beate Striebel-Greiter

Final version: 04/2024

## CONTRIBUTING INSTITUTIONS (BY COUNTRY)

### Interviews and questionnaires:

GERMANY: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection; Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Federal Institute of Hydrology; Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.

FRANCE: DREAL Nouvelle Aquitaine, Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion; French Biodiversity Office; Adour-Garonne Water Agency; Port of Bordeaux; French National Committee for Marine Fisheries and Sea Farming, NGO MIGADO.

THE NETHERLANDS: Ministry of Agriculture Nature and Food Quality, Royal Dutch Angling Alliance; NGO Ark Nature.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025

© European Union, 2025

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

PDF ISBN 978-92-68-23866-0 / KH-01-25-009-EN-N / doi: 10.2779/0511514
## Knowledge on sturgeon habitats and migration routes:

**GERMANY:** Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries; French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment.

**FRANCE:** French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment; DREAL Nouvelle Aquitaine, Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion.

**THE NETHERLANDS:** Ministry of Agriculture Nature and Food Quality; Royal Dutch Angling Alliance; French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Acipenser sturio, Gironde © Marie Acolas, INRAE</figcaption></figure>

This report was prepared under the contract No. 09.0201/2022/885601/SER/D.3, "Supporting Conservation and Protection Actions to Implement the Pan-European Sturgeon Action Plan" funded by the European Commission and implemented in 2023-2024 by a consortium comprising of WWF-CEE as coordinator, IGB - Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, INRAE - French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Wildlife Estonia, University of Padua and two subcontractors: BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences and Dr. Ralf Reinartz.

Cover photo: © Romaric Le Barh, INRAE
# Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

2. The region .................................................................................................................... 4

3. Sturgeon species in this region .................................................................................... 4

3.1 The Baltic or Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus) ................................................................. 4

3.2 The European sturgeon (A. sturio) .................................................................................... 4

3.3 Protection Status .................................................................................................................. 5

4. State of knowledge on sturgeon habitats and migration routes in your region ..5

Gironde System .................................................................................................................... 7

Rhine basin .................................................................................................................... 9

Elbe basin .................................................................................................................... 11

Shortcomings .................................................................................................................... 13

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 13

5. Other main threats for sturgeon in this region (top 3 priorities) .................... 14

6. Ongoing conservation activities in the region (overview by country) ............ 16

7. Identified gaps related to the conservation actions outlined in the PANEUAP and recommendations to tackle the current deficits ................................................................. 19

Obj. 1: Remaining wild populations are protected from accidental and directed removal of individuals .................................................................................................................... 19

Obj. 2: Population structure is actively supported to reverse the decline ................................. 21

Obj. 3: Sturgeon habitats are protected and restored in key rivers ........................................ 22

Obj. 4: Sturgeon migration (up- and downstream) is secured or facilitated .......................... 23

Obj. 5: Timely and continuous detection of population sizes and changes in remaining wild stocks.................................................................................................................... 23

Obj. 7: Secure adequate funding and regulations to enable the implementation of Action Plan .................................................................................................................... 24

Obj. 9: Monitor and evaluate Action Plan implementation to allow adaptive management ...24

Literature and information sources .................................................................................... 25

Annex 1 Country assessments of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons ....................................................................................................................

Annex 2 Regional assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons ....................................................................................................................
# 1. Introduction

Eight sturgeon species have occurred in Europe's rivers and seas, and all are featured in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Seven of the eight species have been assigned a critically endangered status. The Habitats Directive (Directive

92/43/EEC), one of the two main pieces of European Union (EU) nature legislation, lists all eight species in its Annexes and thus their conservation is a legal obligation for the Member States of the EU.

> Reflecting the high risk of extinction for this species group, a Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons (PANEUAP)<fnref n="1" /> was adopted in November 2018 as a recommendation<fnref n="2" /> of the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention, to which both the EU and its Member States are Parties. The recommendation mandated the Secretariat of the Bern Convention (BC) to closely monitor the implementation of the Action Plan and to coordinate the implementation of regular report-ing on the implementation of the Action Plan at a national level. In May 2019, the EU Nature Directive Expert Group (NADEG) also recommended the implementation of the Action Plan to the EU Member States.

The PANEUAP was designed to serve as a framework of almost 70 actions that aim to "restore all existing sturgeon populations to "least concern" (IUCN) or "favourable" conservation status (Habitats Directive) and re-establish self-sustaining sturgeon populations as well as their life-cycle habitat in their historic range to an extent that ensures species survival and representation of the subpopulations where possible."

Since its adoption, the European Commission (EC) has closely followed the implementation of the PANEUAP, and in 2022 issued a service contract to support its implementation. The scope of the contract covers the development of best practice guidelines on sturgeon population and habitat monitoring, on ex situ measures further comprising release programs, and recommendations to protect sturgeon from bycatch.

In addition, the EC requested the contract consortium to:

>> assess existing knowledge about sturgeon habitats and migration obstacles in 11 key river basins including Danube, Rioni, Po, Vistula, Oder, Nemunas, Gauja, Narva, Elbe, Rhine and Gironde.

<footnote n="1">¹ https://rm.coe.int/pan-european-action-plan-for-sturgeons/16808e84f3</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² https://rm.coe.int/recommendation-199-2018-action-plan-sturgeon/1680a01895</footnote>
>> compile information on the implementation of the PANEUAP in 18 key sturgeon range countries, including 15 EU Member States (Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, France, and the Netherlands) as well as Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia. The coherence and gaps resulting from the country assessments should be summarized at the level of the five river or sea basins relevant for sturgeon conservation (Northeast Atlantic, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, Upper and Middle Danube, Lower Danube and the Black Sea).

The report at hand is one of the five regional reports, covering the results of the two above mentioned tasks for the Atlantic region comprising France, the Netherlands and Germany. For this region, only three river basins (the Gironde, the Rhine, and the Elbe) as well as the coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the North Sea were considered.

In the frame of the development of the regional reports, the contractor was tasked to assess the coherence between the actions of the PANEUAP, existing national strategies or action plans, and sturgeon conservation measures actually implemented. For some countries, basic information was already provided from a sturgeon focal point meeting under the BC Secretariat in 2022. To complement the information, interviews with key contact persons from each country were conducted to gather relevant information to evaluate the implementation level

of conservation and recovery measures. In general, it was attempted to interview at least three respondents covering a responsible authority for biodiversity, for water management and a sturgeon expert in each country. The national institutions that actually responded to the questionnaire are listed in each country sheet (Annex 1). The questionnaire covered all 9 objectives of the PANEUAP, comprising a total of 85 questions. Respondents were asked to rate actions on a three-level scale of how well their country has implemented the actions of the PANEUAP and provide a rationale for their rating. In cases where respondents were providing deviating ratings, best available expert judgment prevailed.

The results of the individual assessments for the 3 different countries covered in this regional report are found in Annex 1. Subsequently, the ratings of all countries were compared to provide an overview of the whole regional scope in Annex 2. The report discusses the main findings including ongoing conservation measures, remaining gaps, and recommended actions to address them.
## 2. The region

The Atlantic region comprises Western Europe from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Skagerrak, including the British Isles and reaches north to Iceland and Norway. It also includes the shelf regions of the North-east Atlantic and the North Sea with the large rivers entering these waters.

The historic presence of sturgeon is documented for the marine region and 25 river basins from Spain, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These are the following rivers: Guadalquivir, Guadiana, Tagus, Douro, Minho, Adour, Gironde

(Garonne/ Dordogne), Seine, Severn, Wye, Tywy, Dee, Tyne, Tees, Ouse, Trent, Great Ouse, Thames, Schelde, Meuse, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, and Eider.

Today, only the Gironde-Garonne-Dordogne system holds an extant population of the European sturgeon, which is supported by releases of juveniles. Reintroductions are ongoing on the Elbe river and are in experimental phase on the Rhine river, while being under discussion in the UK.

## 3. Sturgeon species in this region

Historically two sturgeon species occurred in the Atlantic region of Europe:

### 3.1 The Baltic or Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)

The Baltic or Atlantic sturgeon was widespread in Northern Europe until approximately 1,500 years ago (Desse-Berset, 2009) and was mainly restricted to the Baltic area for the last 400 years (Popović et

al., 2014). The most recent range, which might have included small remnant populations on the British Isles, is still under discussion. Currently, only single individuals are caught in the Atlantic region.

### 3.2 The European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio)

The European sturgeon originated from the Mediterranean and has successfully inhabited the rivers of the East Atlantic and North Sea region after the last glaciation (Lassalle et al., 2011; Chassaing et al., 2016). It was abundant and heavily exploited in the Guadalquivir (Classen, 1944), the Gironde, the Rhine (De Groot, 2002), and the Elbe. As a result of a number of human pressures, all these populations disappeared during the

second half of the 20th century with the exception of the Gironde population (Lepage & Rochard, 1995).

Both species are diadromous and used to perform long-distance migrations between river catchments and marine habitats. Historical interactions between these two species remain difficult to disentangle (Chassaing et al., 2013).
### 3.3 Protection Status

The European sturgeon is listed as critically endangered by IUCN (2022) and covered in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive. In the most recent reporting under Article 17 of the Directive covering the period from 2013 to 2018, the species was reported as being in an unfavourable-bad (U2) conservation status by Germany, France, Greece, and Spain. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands reported its status as unknown.

The Baltic sturgeon is not explicitly listed in the Annexes of the Directive because it was not known to be a native species in the EU when the Directive was adopted. However, it is now treated similarly to *A. sturio* and considered to be included in Annexes II and IV. Worldwide, the species is listed as vulnerable and in Europe as regionally extinct and reintroduced (IUCN 2022).

## 4. State of knowledge on sturgeon habitats and migration routes in your region

In the frame of this EU service contract, priority for the assessment was given to three river basins with ongoing recovery measures: the Gironde in France, the Rhine in the Netherlands, and the Elbe in Germany. Therefore, only information on these three rivers is included.

Expert knowledge about potential sturgeon habitats was used to assess the status of sturgeon habitats in the Atlantic region. The information provided was entered into a common database. The data collection process included different criteria with regards to the habitat type (feeding, wintering, spawning, nursery) and the differentiation of the data sources for "confirmed habitats" originating from catches and "potential habitats" possessing suitable abiotic parameters but lacking the verification of sturgeon

presence. The determination of the potential was based on information about abiotic parameters such as water depth, substrate composition, and bottom velocity, as well as details about the assessment method. Historical data in the form of recorded catches or other written sources was collected to understand better the historical presence and distribution of the different sturgeon species.

Additionally, information on protected areas, migration obstacles and planned infrastructure projects posing a potential threat to sturgeon habitats was collected from the following sources: World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), European Environment Agency (EEA), AMBER Barrier Atlas, and state authorities. Based on the information collected, GIS maps for each river
basin were produced with four layers: documented habitats, potential habitats, protected areas, and migration obstacles, including possible mitigation measures, and planned locations for large infrastructure

developments such as dredging, flood protection and navigation enhancement measures. The maps were again reviewed by sturgeon experts from each country.

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Habitat types and status (potential, confirmed and historical) by country in the Gironde, Rhine, and Elbe river basins. Data in the table comprise the entire set that was made available to the project consortium by regional experts; however, it may be assumed that there are geographical gaps in the assessments.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Habitat type / River basin</th><th colspan="2">Feeding</th><th colspan="2">Wintering</th><th colspan="2">Spawning</th><th rowspan="2">Nurser y</th><th rowspan="2">Historical presence</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>confirmed</th><th>potential</th><th>confirmed</th><th>potential</th><th>confirmed</th><th>potential</th><th>confirmed</th><th>confirmed</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gironde</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>27</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td><strong>3</strong></td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Rhine</td><td></td><td>14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td></td><td>7</td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Elbe</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>40</td><td></td><td>6</td><td><strong>14</strong></td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>15</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>75</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td><strong>17</strong></td><td><strong>129</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

In total, 129 habitats of the European sturgeon were identified in the Gironde system, the Rhine, and the Elbe. It must be noted that due to the different approaches in habitat characterization and assignment, the results between the different countries vary, which does not reflect the abundance or quality of the habitats in question. Out of the total, only 16 habitats have been categorized as confirmed, while 98 are consid-

ered as potential habitats, and the remaining 15 represent historical presence records. Notably, the two feeding habitats in the Gironde estuary display the feeding habitat extension, which stretches along a major part of the estuary. As for the Rhine, only the locations of potential and historical habitats have been identified due to the current absence of a sturgeon population in the river.
# The Gironde system

In the Gironde system, good knowledge is available about the estuarine habitats and their use by sturgeon (Brosse et al., 2011). The understanding of the use of tidal river by monitoring young-of-the-year is limited to the data originating from telemetry experiments (Acolas et al., 2012; Acolas et al., 2017; Carrera Garcia et al., 2017). Sturgeon reproduction has not been observed so far in

the basin; the list of potential spawning grounds is based on physical characteristics (Jego et al., 2002). At sea, *A. sturio* from the Gironde basin undertake large-scale migrations from the Bay of Biscay to the North Sea, mainly frequenting coastal and shallow areas, including estuarine plumes (Rochard et al., 1997; Lepage & Rochard, 2011; Charbonnel et al., 2023).

**Figure 1** Historical, confirmed, and potential sturgeon habitats in the Gironde river basin as derived from historical reports as well as recent research (fisheries and telemetry) and the current knowledge on habitat characteristics and habitat requirements of the species in question; the habitat types are provided in the legend

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Figure 1 illustrates confirmed and potential sturgeon habitats as well as the historical presence of sturgeon in the Gironde system. Data derived from boat trawling in the estuary and telemetry studies revealed that a major area of the Gironde estuary is confirmed as a sturgeon feeding habitat. Only one known nursery habitat, situated in the Lower Dordogne river, has been confirmed, while no wintering or spawning sites have been confirmed through catches. Historical records indicate that sturgeon distribution historically ranged upstream to Toulouse in the Garonne river. In the project,

a total of 28 potential habitats were identified, with 12 located in the Dordogne river and 16 in the Garonne river. Data are available for two habitat types: feeding and spawning. However, only one potential feeding habitat is identified.
Figure 2 displays the existing barriers as well as planned infrastructure projects potentially threatening sturgeon habitats and migration routes. In the Gironde system, there are in total 12 barriers situated in the historical sturgeon distribution range. The majority of barriers can be categorized as hydropower plants. Within the Garonne river system, a total of eight barriers are present, while in the Dordogne river and its tributaries, there are 4 barriers in total. With the exception of one barrier in the Garonne river, all barriers are situated upstream of the identified confirmed and potential sturgeon habitats. At present, no large infrastructure projects are being planned in the Gironde system.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Existing barriers and planned in-river in-frastructures in the Gironde river basin adversely affecting the riverine habitats.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Overlay of the data on confirmed sturgeon habitats, existing barriers, and planned in-frastructure projects & protected areas in the Gironde river basin from Figure 1 and 2. (Source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023).</figcaption></figure>

Figure 3 indicates the presence of protected areas within the displayed rivers. In the Gironde system, both the Garonne and the Dordogne rivers, along with the Gironde estuary, are protected by sites specifically designated for the conservation of sturgeon species. All confirmed and potential sturgeon habitats are situated within these protected areas.
# The Rhine basin

In the Rhine and the Elbe basins, knowledge about habitats mainly comes from historical observation (Gessner et al., 2014), with additional information from recent telemetry and bycatch data (Brevé et al., 2013; Brevé et al., 2019).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Historical and confirmed sturgeon habitats in the Rhine river basin as derived from historical reports and recent research (fisheries and telemetry); the habitat types are provided in the legend.</figcaption></figure>

Figure 4 illustrates confirmed sturgeon habitats as well as the historical presence of sturgeons in the Rhine river basin. Here, only data on historical presence is available. No confirmed sturgeon habitats have been identified. The historical range of the European sturgeon in the Rhine extended as far as Schaffhausen, where the Rhine Falls served as a natural migration barrier. Other tributaries of historical significance include the Main, Mosel, Meuse, Neckar, and Ruhr rivers.

<caption>**Figure 5** Potential sturgeon habitats in the Rhine river basin based on current knowledge on habitat characteristics and habitat requirements of the species; the habitat types are provided in the legend.</caption>

Figure 5 illustrates the current knowledge regarding potential sturgeon habitats in the Rhine river basin. A total of 22 potential habitats have been identified, mostly situated in the mainstem. Within the main river, there are eight known potential spawning habitats. Additionally, both the main river and the estuary region harbour potential feeding habitats, with a total of 14 currently identified. The dimensions of these habitats vary.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Existing barriers and planned in-river infrastructures in the Rhine basin adversely affecting the riverine habitats. (Source: AMBER Consortium, 2020; expert knowledge)</figcaption></figure>

A total of 103 barriers relevant to sturgeon have been identified in the Rhine and its tributaries (Figure 6). Among these, 29 barriers are situated in the mainstem. Across the tributaries, the highest number of barriers are located in the Main (30), the Neckar (13), and the Ruhr (13). Over 90% of these are hydropower plants. According to current expert knowledge, there are no large infrastructure projects in planning stages threatening sturgeon habitats or migration corridors.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Overlay of the data on confirmed sturgeon habitats, existing barriers, and planned infrastructures & protected areas in the Rhine river basin. (Source: AMBER Consortium, 2020; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023)</figcaption></figure>

A range of protected areas can be found along the Rhine and its tributaries. The mainstem benefits from protection through several in-river sites, notably including a conservation area designated specifically to protect the sturgeon, known as the "Wanderfischgebiete im Rhein" (migratory fish areas in the Rhine). This protected area is designated as one of the special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive. However, while there are in-river protected areas, for instance, under the Natura 2000 network or national designations, the actual effectiveness of the protection status concerning sturgeon habitats should be viewed critically. This calls for a thorough verification of national protection targets and a resulting limitation on activities within these areas, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation.
The Elbe basin

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

**Figure 8** Historical and confirmed sturgeon habitats in the Elbe river basin as derived from historical reports and recent research (fisheries and telemetry); the habitat types are provided in the legend.

In the Elbe river basin, a total of 14 confirmed European sturgeon habitats have been identified (Figure 8), with three located in connected tributaries, based upon telemetry data. Thirteen of the confirmed habitats represent feeding habitats, while only one is a wintering habitat. No locations serving as spawning or nursery habitats have been identified thus far. Tributaries of historical significance include the Oste, Stör, Havel, Mulde, Saale, Ohře (Eger), and Vltava (Moldau) rivers.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Figure 9 provides locations of potential sturgeon habitats in the Elbe and its tributaries. A total of 47 potential habitats have been identified, of which almost 50 % are located in the tributaries. The lack of knowledge on estuarine habitats in the Elbe river area is a result of intensive shipping activity which renders scientific fishery and telemetry extremely challenging. The majority, comprising 40 locations, are classified as potential spawning habitats, followed by seven potential feeding habitats. No potential wintering habitats have been identified in the region.

**Figure 9** Potential sturgeon habitats in the Elbe river basin based on the current knowledge on habitat characteristics and habitat requirements of the species; the habitat types are provided in the legend.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10** Existing barriers and planned in-river infrastructures in the Elbe river basin adversely affecting the riverine habitats. (Source: AMBER Consortium, 2020; expert knowledge)</figcaption></figure>

In the Elbe river, only one barrier is situated in the mainstem river in Germany, while the migration in the Czech river section is blocked by a series of impassable dams not displayed in the map, as the Czech Republic was not covered by this service contract. Of the tributaries, the Saale river has the highest number of sturgeon-relevant barriers (18), followed by the Havel with 7 barriers. 20 of the 43 barriers are hydropower plants, followed by dams as the second most common barrier type.

In the Elbe, extensive infrastructure projects, such as channel construction along 574 river kilometres and maintenance dredging along 145 river kilometres, pose threats to both confirmed and potential sturgeon habitats.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Out of the 14 confirmed sturgeon habitats, 10 are situated within in-river protected areas. Sturgeon are not part of the target of the protection due to the lack of self-sustaining populations (Figure 11). Despite a significant portion of the Elbe flowing through both in-river and partially in-river protected areas, the map clearly indicates ongoing major infrastructure construction planned along the entire river. This highlights the need to critically assess the actual effectiveness of the protection status concerning sturgeon habitats. It also calls for a thorough verification of national protection targets and a resulting limitation on activities within these areas, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation.

<caption>**Figure 11** Overlay of the data on confirmed sturgeon habitats, existing barriers, and planned infrastructures & protected areas in the Rhine river basin. (Source: AMBER Consortium, 2020; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023)</caption>
## Shortcomings

Overall, legal protection of sturgeon habitats is weak, easily circumvented, and in need of strengthening. As the species is considered absent in most rivers, an official protection of habitats for sturgeon is not legally possible, even if recovery measures are already in execution. The species is considered absent and because of these habitat protection efforts are not implemented until reproduction can be proven.

Only a very few potential spawning grounds benefit from strong legal protection (mainly those of the Garonne river), and others can be easily impacted by works in river channels or on riverbanks. River continuity in the lower parts of the basins is slowly improving, exemplified in the building of a fish passage

at Geesthacht on the Elbe, the partial opening of the Haringvliet dam in the Rhine delta, and the building of a fishway between Ijsselmeer and the Wadden Sea. Access to most of the tributaries remains impossible as there are impassable dams to reach historical spawning grounds in the Havel, Saale, Ohre and Vltava (Moldau) rivers in the middle and upper Elbe basin.

Estuarine habitats are particularly threatened by the dredging of shipping channels and demands for gravel and sand extraction. At sea, even the marine protected areas in France and Germany that mention A. sturio in their management plans do not prevent the degradation of habitats by trawlers or from the development of wind farms.

## RECOMMENDATIONS:

To successfully implement measures to protect and restore sturgeon habitats and populations in the Atlantic region, a standardized approach for habitat identification and confirmation must be established. This is described in the guidelines on sturgeon habitat monitoring within this contract. The most important step is the implementation of habitat monitoring based on the standardization of field methods on an international level. The second step would be establishing a joint habitat database in the near future, where key parameters can be assessed across countries. In this context, a significant shortcoming is the lack of field data on abiotic parameters such as current patterns, bottom flow velocity, and substrate composition, along with macro-zoobenthos community structure and feed preferences of the different life stages of sturgeons. Since these parameters are crucial in describing sturgeon habitats, their assessment and subsequent inclusion into the list of habitat criteria are indispensable. In the Elbe, the next step should entail confirming potential spawning and nursery habitats using the methods outlined in the respective Habitat Monitoring Guideline. This should be performed in conjunction with the verification of habitat use and migration of returning spawners to determine the need for habitat restoration measures.
Similarly, for the Rhine river system a verification of the river's potential as sturgeon habitat for different life cycle stages is an essential next step. At this point in time, the confirmation of habitats is completely lacking. When interpreting maps regarding the protection status of sturgeon habitats, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effective protection status of habitats in detail, as this can vary significantly at the national level. Only such an assessment can help to identify both the sites that appropriately protect sturgeon and the current deficits in protecting such sites, as well as to initiate the implementation of conservation measure.

## 5. Other main threats for sturgeon in this region (top 3 priorities)

### BYCATCH

In the Northeast Atlantic, the English Channel, and the North Sea, individuals are rare and scattered; most fishers have never encountered a sturgeon in their nets. Due to their small population number, there is no commercial interest to catch sturgeon in this area as of now.

Relationships between fisheries administrations and fishers are tense due to the consequences of Brexit with regard to the limited access to fishing areas, the increase of energy cost, and constraints to limit bycatch of marine mammals (for example, that of dolphins in the Bay of Biscay). Based on surveys carried out in the fisheries in the Netherlands and Eastern Germany, fishers express a general reluctance to declare any bycatch. The main motive is the fear that such information increases the probability of further restrictions. This explains, at least in part, the sharp decrease in bycatch declarations recorded in the French Sturwild bycatch database. An additional point contributing to the

decrease in reports can be related to a habituation of fishers encountering sturgeon more regularly in their catch as expressed by fishers in Germany who have considered it more exciting to report a rare species for the first time. In this case, the projects would suffer from their success by decreasing the information flow through the increasing abundance of once rare fish.

After the releases of *A. sturio* in the Gironde basin, sturgeon can be locally abundant and some fishers targeting meagre (*Argyrosomus regius*) or sole (*Solea solea*) in the estuary or its plume with gillnets or trammel nets have caught several of them (up to dozens). In general, fishers support the recovery plan and contribute by reporting their accidental bycatch. However, the history of caviar production in this area is still not forgotten, and as large adult sturgeon (TL >1.80 m) are again observed, the risk that bycatch leads to poaching is increasing.
WATER QUALITY

Water quality improved in the northern part of the area (e.g. Seine, Rhine, Elbe basins), while in the southern part there are still numerous basins with poor quality. The Gironde estuary is still heavily polluted with metals which are mobilized on arrival to the brackish water and as a result are accumulated in the food chain after dredging (Robert et al., 2004).

Experimental exposure of sturgeon embryos to sediments from certain potential spawning areas in the Garonne and Dordogne rivers resulted in high mortality and abnormal development (Delage, 2015). As river flows are

expected to decrease in most climate change scenarios, the concentration of pollutants will increase, leading to an increased risk for embryo development.

Moreover, we observed very low levels of oxygen linked to dredging and suspension of sediment in the lower parts of rivers and their estuaries. This is the result of the management measures to meet the requirements of the ports (e.g. Elbe estuary). These values reach critical levels and regularly lead to fish kills.

SHIPPING

North American studies have highlighted the potential negative effects of massive, large ship traffic on sturgeon in estuaries and tidal rivers (Simpson & Fox, 2009; Brown & Murphy, 2010). As two of the three basins in the Northeast Atlantic region are home to major ports (Rotterdam in the Rhine delta and Hamburg in the Elbe estuary), the potential impacts of maritime transport and the maintenance of the channels of the respective rivers through dredging needs to be considered as a serious threat. So far, only a few

accidents resulting in mortalities of sturgeon have been documented in these river systems. In the Elbe, approximately 50% of the returning fish that have been documented between 2021 and today were mortalities which revealed massive trauma. With increasing population size, the problem could become even more serious and needs to be addressed to protect both returning adults as well as outmigrating juveniles.
# 6. Ongoing conservation activities in the region (overview by country)

In the Atlantic region, there is a very positive dynamic between the first action plans launched in 2007, their national implementation, and those currently emerging. This momentum is maintained by frequent exchanges and participation in various events such as the Sturgeon online meetings of researchers involved in the recovery projects for sturgeon species across Europe.

## French Action Plan

The plan is currently in the second phase of the recovery and is updated from its predecessor (Adam, 2020), maintaining efforts on former *in situ* and *ex situ* actions for the conservation of *A. sturio*. One notable addition to the plan, as compared to the previous version, is the official request to specifically address the issue of predation, in particular by the wels catfish (*Silurus glanis*). Implementation would need to be coordinated with other action plans in Europe.

After a long period without success, assisted reproduction from the French *ex situ* stock in

2022 and after enabled the partners to conduct releases in the Gironde (4000, 3-month-old juveniles) (Figure 12) and Elbe basins (200 individuals). Additionally, a transfer of individuals for experimental releases in the Rhine (250 individuals) and Ebro (50 individuals) deltas took place. The aim is to increase the availability of juveniles further to strengthen the Gironde population, to establish one in the Elbe, and to enable research to support conservation.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12** Young sturgeons released in the Dordogne River, September 2022 © MIGADO.</figcaption></figure>
In the absence of juveniles, research has focused on marine distribution using a species distribution model (Charbonnel, et al., 2023), the estuarine characteristics of the habitats used (Lamour et al., 2024), and comparing genetic tools to identify *A. sturio* (Chancerel et al., 2023). The effects of fungicides on sturgeon embryos were assessed using model species.

## German National Action Plan

The German National Action Plan was based on the Bern Convention Action Plan for *A. sturio* (Rosenthal et al., 2007) and was approved in 2010 (Gessner et al., 2010). While the Action Plan is still operational, an official update is planned in 2024 by the Federal Agency of Nature Conservation. The plan focuses on the establishment of the *ex situ* broodstock and subsequent releases, as well as research into the habitat utilization of the

New tools have been developed by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) to record accidental bycatch (Sturwild), to manage sampling events (Sturat) and *ex situ* stocks (Ex Situ Fish Conservation, ESFC). A version of the Sturwild database is currently being transferred for implementation under the auspices of the Baltic Sea Sturgeon Action Plan.

species and increased *in situ* protection. In the *ex situ* broodstock, maturation of both males and females was observed, but between 2020 and 2023 no successful reproduction was realized. After several years of technical and financial planning, the idea to locate an *ex situ* stock in a new infrastructure close to the Geesthacht fish pass has been abandoned.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13** Sturgeon release in the Elbe Biosphere Reserve in Lower Saxony, Germany, 29 September 2012 © Andrea Schmidt, Biosphaerium Bleckede.</figcaption></figure>
## The Lower Rhine Action Plan

The Dutch Action Plan covers the Lower Rhine (the river branches of the Rhine in the Netherlands and in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany) and the Dutch part of the North Sea. This Action Plan (Visser et al., 2020) was adopted in 2020 and is in effect until 2030. Its main goal is to finalize the feasibility and risk assessment as a prerequisite for

reintroduction and to prepare the decision for an official launch of the European sturgeon recovery program in the Lower Rhine by 2030. Tagged young sturgeon, from the French ex *situ* stock, were released in the Rhine delta in 2023 to better document the habitats used.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14** Sturgeon release in Biesbosch National Park, 2 June 2023 (The Netherlands) © Ark Nature & Sportvisserij Nederland.</figcaption></figure>

## UK Sturgeon Conservation Strategy and Action Plan

After several years of team building and co-operation with other Action Plans in Europe, a consortium gathering several NGOs compiled the first UK Sturgeon Action Plan (Mc Cormick et al., 2023). As a first step, the efforts will focus on identifying the occurrence of the species on the British Isles, improving

potential sturgeon habitats, and limiting mortality in bycatch. Considerations about reintroductions are ongoing as part of a structured decision-making process, including the open question about which species to consider.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15** Cover of the UK Action Plan. (Mc Cormick, et al., 2023)</figcaption></figure>
# 7. Identified gaps related to the conservation actions outlined in the PANEUAP and recommendations to tackle the current deficits

**Obj. 1: Remaining wild populations are protected from accidental and directed removal of individuals**

**Obj. 1, Result 1.1. Direct removal of individuals is eliminated**

**Status:**

Sturgeon fishing is prohibited. However, there is **limited willingness by fisheries administrations to consider sturgeon issues**. In France and Germany there are too many other conflicts with fisheries (restricted fishing areas as consequences of the Brexit, energy cost, sea mammal accidental bycatch) which reduce the activities of administration and the will of fishers to collaborate. In addition, in Germany and The Netherlands, as well as in the UK, sturgeon species are still not considered present, resulting in no specific actions of the authorities that specifically target sturgeons.

There are awareness campaigns to inform fishers about the status and the way to handle sturgeon in the case of accidental capture. Most of them follow the rules, but **according to some players, control should be stricter**.

**Recommendation:** Absence of reproduction must not be used to prevent effective protection measures if the species is regularly encountered in the region. Since population recovery is expected to take at least 25 years before showing first signs of reproduction under natural conditions, reducing its impact and the resulting losses plays a key role in the conservation and recovery of the species. Protection of a species of special concern must not be waived until the attempts for its recovery have been successful. Rather, protection needs to support the survival of the remaining individuals as well as the recovery process of a population on its way to become self-sustaining.

**Obj. 1, Action 1.1.** It is crucial to better involve fisheries and their administrations in the steering committees of the action plans.

**Obj. 1, Result 1.2.** Accidental removal is reduced to levels allowing population recovery

**Status:**

In the countries of this region, it is not compulsory to declare accidental bycatch and, consequently, **we do not know if the captures voluntarily declared in the framework of the National Action Plans (NAPs) are representative**. Since bycatch represents the most important impact on the population under recovery, reducing its impact and the resulting losses plays a key role in the conservation and recovery of the species. As a prerequisite for sound decisions, knowledge about bycatch that occurs is pivotal to address the activities that impact the populations the most.
There are several protected areas mentioning sturgeons in their management plan; however, **most of them provide very low levels of protection** against accidental captures and habitat degradation.

**Recommendation:** The collection of accidental bycatch data must be enhanced massively to close the gaps in information on the effective threats to the species. To this end, the legally available/required measures, such as obligatory reporting of catches of threatened species, must be implemented. Observer reports, logbooks and a compulsory record keeping of the catch of endangered species is a first step to obtain an overview on the real dimension of fisheries impact. These data are essential for the planning and implementation of countermeasures.

It is necessary to establish closed areas excluding certain detrimental fishing gear in riverine, estuarine and marine protected areas. The Habitat Directive requests that potential habitats of Annexes II and IV species are protected. As such, measures that reduce the risk of accidental mortalities must be implemented in order to prevent the extirpation of the species.

**Obj. 1, Result 1.3.** Level of accidental losses of individuals by ship strikes, hydropower, and water abstraction facilities is assessed and reduced

**Status:**

To date, only one sturgeon was reported from a water abstraction facility of a nuclear power plant in France, while in the Lower Elbe river the collection of approximately 40 exotic sturgeons was reported from the rakes of a nuclear power plant during a monitoring event in the late 1990s (Möller et al. 1996, Spratte, pers. comm.). No reports are available from hydropower facilities. There were some cases of fish being killed by ship strikes or dredging activities in the Elbe and the Rhine in previous years. In 2023, an altered time window for dredging that prohibits any activities in April and May in the Elbe came into force. This year, no mortalities of sturgeons have been recorded, but the effectiveness is uncertain since the number of returning fish is not available. In the Rhine, to date, no measures have been implemented to limit this risk.

Mortalities of rare individuals that result from the release programs must be assessed and incorporated into the adaptive management strategies for recovery. These unnoticed losses distort the results on the population development and prevent effective countermeasures as long as the dimension of the problem remains unknown.

**Recommendation:** As in fisheries, the accidental mortalities that occur in water abstraction and dredging activities must be monitored in a regular, consistent manner to obtain reliable data on the impact of these measures and to be able to work towards mitigation measures. This is particularly true for new developments of water abstraction facilities, which must include effective protection measures not only for adults, but also for early life stages.

Port authorities must be informed of the risks that shipping and shipping-related habitat management pose to sturgeons and must propose adaptation measures to limit these impacts.
**Obj. 2: Population structure is actively supported to reverse the decline**

**Obj. 2, Result 2.1.** Ex situ broodstocks are established to secure genetic diversity of all sturgeon populations

**Status:**

France and Germany have established ex situ broodstocks and reproduction programmes. Both countries regularly exchange information on planned measures and associated experiments to be carried out. At the same time, it is difficult to ensure long-term funding for the construction and operation of an ex situ facility. For example, the project for a new facility devoted to sturgeons and migratory fish species on the Elbe river in Germany was finally abandoned for budgetary reasons. Sturgeons are economically very valuable and long-lived animals (up to 100 years) and the maintenance of a broodstock in captivity must be ensured with a longer perspective. If funding is provided only irregularly or ceases completely, the unique genetic resources which have been established over years are at risk of being lost. Since these broodstocks in general serve as a resource for several countries, the loss of genetic resources impacts entire regions with shared populations.

**Recommendation:** Whenever countries adopt National Action Plans that prioritize ex situ measures, budgetary plans for the period covered by these Action Plans must be developed at the same time, as shown in France.

> As there is already an A. sturio ex situ breeding facility established in France, other countries are encouraged to support this facility financially or through other means. The ex situ stock of A. sturio currently maintained in Berlin as a backup is in need of expansion of the rearing facilities to ensure welfare of the fish.

**Obj. 2, Result 2.2.4.** Prohibit uncontrolled stocking (i.e. exotic species and genotypes) through adequate jurisdiction and enforcement; increase safeguarding measures to prevent escapement from rearing facilities

**Status:**

Despite measures taken, **non-native sturgeon species are frequently observed** in open waters across Europe, which either originate from fish farms, sport fishing ponds or pet trade (Brevé et al., 2022). There is a significant lack of enforcement of existing legislation against the spreading of exotic sturgeons in open waters.

With the considerable risk of hybridization between different sturgeon species and the potential for the transfer of pathogens, the release of non-native species poses a constant threat to the recovery of the native sturgeon species. When biosecurity is increased in jurisdiction and in practice, and the fish in the trade chain can be traced back to the producer, vendor, and buyer, enforcement can become more effective.
**Obj. 3: Sturgeon habitats are protected and restored in key rivers**

**Obj. 3, Result 3.1.** Existing habitats are identified and protected from deterioration

**Recommendation:** While legislation against releases of exotics is in place, the enforcement and the possibility for identification of the sources of introduced exotics are insufficient. As such, it is recommended that offspring sold by farmers to pet shops and other vendors or farms are marked (either genetically or physically) and the registration of sales is rendered obligatory, so as to allow the identification of the source of releases. Furthermore, increasing awareness in the sector (ornamental fish trade, angling clubs) is necessary to prevent illegal stocking. Increased biosecurity measures for fish farms have been called on for the last 30 years to prevent the escape of various non-native species. Stricter controls are required to ensure that compliance increases. We do not recommend the production of hybrids, which are more difficult to identify. They should be banned from import, whether for fish farms or pet shops.

**Status:**

In countries where the European sturgeon is not considered extant, there is no possibility to protect potential habitats. In other cases, certain potential habitats are not specifically protected. Even when sturgeon are mentioned as targets of protected areas, the level of habitat protection is generally very low. Furthermore, most of these areas provide very low levels of protection against accidental captures.

Population recovery is expected to take at least 25 years before showing first signs of reproduction under natural conditions. If the legal protection of its habitat is not feasible until the species is considered extant again (meaning that reproduction is confirmed), the habitat will have a high probability of being lost by the time protection would be considered, rendering the whole of the recovery efforts impossible or imposing further costs for habitat recovery measures.

**Recommendation:** Potentially suitable key habitats identified in rivers, estuaries, or at sea should benefit from a higher level of regulatory protection. Only if critical habitats are already protected during and in parallel to the process of the recovery measures, will recovery have a chance to succeed.

**Obj. 3, Result 3.2.** Habitats restored in key rivers

**Status:**

Even in cases where opportunities for habitat restoration have been identified, such as in the Elbe basin (Gessner, et al., 2014), implementation is lacking.

**Recommendation:** The functionality of key habitats for sturgeon must be assessed. On a catchment scale, all habitats essential to the functioning of a population must exist and be functional. If they are not, it is necessary to examine the possibilities of restoring them, including prioritising them, and finding the means for restoration activities.
**Obj. 4: Sturgeon migration (up- and downstream) is secured or facilitated**

**Obj. 4, Result 4.2. Migration restored in key sturgeon rivers**

**Status:**

Except for two locations on the Elbe (in Geesthacht and the Mulde at Dessau) and in one on-going project between the Ijssellmeer and the Wadden Sea on the Lower Rhine, no dams have been equipped with fish passage facilities designed for sturgeon. For the French Dordogne-Garonne-Gironde system, it was concluded that as the abundance of the population is still very low, and several potentially suitable habitats exist downstream of the lowermost dams, the situation is not considered critical. However, when populations increase, it will be necessary to enable them to reach upstream habitats and therefore improve the passage of the barriers.

Habitat restoration is currently not implemented for sturgeons due to a lack of detailed information about the required habitat characteristics, but also because, in most cases, the species are not considered to be extant. The habitat restoration activities beyond passage facilitation currently carried out in the rivers Havel, Mulde, and Stör in the Elbe catchment are focusing on other key targets, though they may partly benefit sturgeon through the provision of spawning and feeding habitats.

**Recommendation:** It is necessary to provide for the reconstruction or removal of certain obstacles obstructing or hindering access to historical sturgeon spawning grounds located in the mouth of the Havel river in the Elbe catchment. In light of the extensive time needed to design and implement passage solutions for sturgeon, obstacles to potential spawning grounds should be addressed as early as possible.

**Obj. 5: Timely and continuous detection of population sizes and changes in remaining wild stocks**

**Obj. 5, Result 5.1. Monitoring programs are designed and implemented**

**Status:**

There is no official monitoring program established in the Netherlands, and in Germany it is limited to periods of telemetry observation of juveniles stocked and the collection of bycatch data. At sea, despite the requirements and obligations under EU legislation, there is no official recording of bycatch data for sturgeons, nor is mandatory record keeping in the logbooks enforced. Coherent transboundary monitoring systems and data exchange are crucial to assess the actual status of shared populations, the success or failures of recovery measures, and the achievement of the goals of the Action Plans.

**Recommendation:** Regular exchanges of information are crucial to prepare standardized monitoring and to benefit from methodological feedback (e.g. environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, identification of potential habitats). Each recovery project should have its consistent means of tagging (external and internal) and must be able to recognise and read the models used by the other projects. Information from monitoring databases must be accessible and follow a common standard to allow for cross referencing.
**Obj. 7: Secure adequate funding and regulations to enable the implementation of Action Plan**

**Obj. 7, Result 7.1.** Adequate funding instruments for long-term actions are in place

**Status:**

To date, none of the range countries provides secured long-term funding for sturgeon recovery actions. Successive projects and contracts limit the security in planning for the implementation of Action Plans, which constitutes a national obligation. This practice constitutes a particular risk for the maintenance of *ex situ* broodstocks as well as for any monitoring activities (see Objective 2).

**Recommendation:** Funding plans should be developed in parallel to Action Plans and the priority measures agreed under Action Plans should have the prospect of longer-term funding and commitment from responsible authorities. Lower priorities can be subject of funding by other actors and third parties. A concerted approach for the financial support of the activities carried out under the national Action Plans is an urgent requirement to ensure the long-term perspective required for such measures in long-lived species like sturgeon.

**Obj. 9: Monitor and evaluate Action Plan implementation to allow adaptive management**

**Obj. 9, Result 9.1.** Responsibilities for Action Plan implementation clarified and regular monitoring and evaluation conducted

**Status:**

In the long term, it has shown to be increasingly difficult to actively involve stakeholders to the Action Plans. This fact delays and threatens necessary budgetary and technical decisions and hampers coordination and exchange between different National Action Plans.

**Recommendation:** The sturgeon focal points identified under the Bern Convention should organise regular (at least annual) national meetings with Action Plan stakeholders in order to ensure collective decisions and clarify responsibilities for implementation.
## Literature and information sources

1. Acolas, M.L., Le Pichon, C., and Rochard, E. (2017) Spring habitat use by stocked one year old European sturgeon Acipenser sturio in the freshwater-oligohaline area of the Gironde estuary. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 196, 58-69

2. Acolas, M.L., Rochard, E., Le Pichon, C., and Rouleau, E. (2012) Downstream migration patterns of one-year-old hatchery-reared European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 430-431, 68-77

3. Adam, G.c. (2020) Plan national d'actions 2020-2029 en faveur de l'esturgeon européen Acipenser sturio. Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire

4. Brevé, N.W.P., Leuven, R.S.E.W., Buijse, A.D., Murk, A.J., Venema, J., and Nagelkerke, L.A.J. (2022) The conservation paradox of critically endangered fish species: Trading alien sturgeons versus native sturgeon reintroduction in the Rhine-Meuse river delta. Sci. Total Environ. 848

5. Brevé, N.W.P., Vis, H., Houben, B., Breukelaar, A., and Acolas, M.-L. (2019) Outmigration pathways of stocked juvenile European Sturgeon (Acipenser Sturio L., 1758) in the lower Rhine River, as revealed by telemetry. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 35, 61-68

6. Brevé, N.W.P., Vis, H., Houben, B., de Laak, G.A.J., Breukelaar, A.W., Acolas, M.L., de Bruijn, Q.A.A., and Spierts, I. (2013) Exploring the possibilities of seaward migrating juvenile European sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., in the Dutch part of the River Rhine. J. Coast. Conserv.

7. Brosse, L., Taverny, C., and Lepage, M. (2011) Chapter 11 Habitats, movements and feeding of juveniles European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) in Gironde estuary. In Biology and conservation of the Atlantic European sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 (Williot, P., Rochard, E., Desse-Berset, N., Kirschbaum, F., and Gessner, J., eds), 153-163, Springer

8. Brown, J.J., and Murphy, G.W. (2010) Atlantic sturgeon vessel-strike mortalities in the delaware estuary. Fisheries 35, 72-83

9. Carrera Garcia, E., Rochard, E., and Acolas, M.L. (2017) Effects of rearing practice on post-release young-of-the-year behavior: Acipenser sturio early life in freshwater. Endangered Species Research 34, 269-281

10. Chancerel, E., Acolas, M.-L., and Lepais, O. (2023) Species-level identification of the critically endangered European sturgeon Acipenser sturio using DNA-based approaches. bioRxiv, 2023.2005.2005.539572

11. Charbonnel, A., Lambert, P., Lassalle, G., Quinton, E., Guisan, A., Mas, L., Paquignon, G., Lecomte, M., and Acolas, M.-L. (2023) Developing species distribution models for critically endangered species using participatory data: The European sturgeon marine habitat suitability. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 280, 108136

12. Chassaing, O., Desse-Berset, N., Duffraisse, M., Hughes, S., Hänni, C., and Berrebi, P. (2013) Palaeogenetics of western French sturgeons spotlights the relationships between Acipenser sturio and Acipenser oxyrinchus. J. Biogeogr. 40, 382-393

13. Chassaing, O., Desse Berset, N., Hänni, C., Hughes, S., and Berrebi, P. (2016) Phylogeography of the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio): A critically endangered species. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 94, 346-357

14. Classen, T.E. (1944) Estudio bio-estadistico del Esturion o sollo del Guadalquivir (Acipenser sturio L.). Minist. Mar. Inst. Español Oceanograf

15. De Groot, S.J. (2002) A review of the past and present status of anadromous fish species in the Netherlands: is restocking the Rhine feasible? Hydrobiologia 478, 205-218

16. Delage, N. (2015) Etude expérimentale des effets des conditions environnementales (température, oxygène, polluants) sur la survie, le développement et le comportement des stades embryo-larvaires d'esturgeon européen, Acipenser sturio. 232 p, Bordeaux

17. Desse-Berset, N. (2009) First archaeozoological identification of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus Mitchill 1815) in France. C. R. Palevol in press

18. Gessner, J., Tautenhahn, M., Von Nordheim, H., and Borchers, T. (2010) Plan national d'actions pour la protection et la conservation de l'Esturgeon européen (Acipenser sturio). 86 p, Gesellschaft zur Rettung des Störes Acipenser sturio L.

19. Gessner, J., Zahn, S., Jaric, I., and Wolter, C. (2014) Estimating the potential for habitat restoration and connectivity effects on European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio L. 1758) population rehabilitation in a lowland river - the Havel, Germany. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 30, 1473-1482

20. Jego, S., Gazeau, C., Jatteau, P., Elie, P., and Rochard, E. (2002) Les frayères potentielles de l'esturgeon européen Acipenser sturio L. 1758 dans le bassin Garonne-Dordogne. Méthodes d'investigation, état actuel et perspectives. Bull. Fr. Peche Piscic. 365-366, 487-505

21. Lamour, M., Le Barh, R., Merg, M.-L., Grasso, F., Quinton, E., Rochard, E., Le Pichon, C., and Acolas, M.-L. (2024) Using simulated environmental variables to assess the seasonal estuarine habitat selection of a critically endangered anadromous species (Acipenser sturio). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 298, 108656

22. Lassalle, G., Béguer, M., and Rochard, E. (2011) Chapter 6 An overview on geographical distribution from past descriptions. In Biology and conservation of the Atlantic European sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 (Williot, P., Rochard, E., Desse-Berset, N., Kirschbaum, F., and Gessner, J., eds), 81-90, Springer

23. Lepage, M., and Rochard, E. (1995) Threatened fishes of the world: Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758 (Acipenseridés). Environmental Biology of Fishes 43, 28

24. Lepage, M., and Rochard, E. (2011) Fishery by-catch of European sturgeon in the Bay of Biscay In Biology and conservation of the Atlantic European sturgeon Acipenser sturio L., 1758 (Williot, P., Rochard, E., Desse-Berset, N., Kirschbaum, F., and Gessner, J., eds), 335-342, Springer

25. Mc Cormick, H., Murray, J.D., Colclough, S.R., Gessner, J., Greenslade, J., Reynolds, L., Hedges, S., Philipsen, P., and Debney, A. (2023) UK sturgeon Conservation strategy and action plan 2023-2033. 39 p, Zoological Society of London
26. Popović, D., Panagiotopoulou, H., Baca, M., Stefaniak, K., Mackiewicz, P., Makowiecki, D., King, T.L., Gruchota, J., Weglenski, P., and Stankovic, A. (2014) The history of sturgeon in the Baltic Sea. J. Biogeogr. 41, 1590-1602

27. Robert, S., Blanc, G., Schafer, J., Lavaux, G., and Abril, G. (2004) Metal mobilization in the Gironde Estuary (France): the role of the soft mud layer in the maximum turbidity zone. Mar. Chem. 87, 1-13

28. Rochard, E., Lepage, M., and Meauze, L. (1997) Identification et caractérisation de l'aire de répartition marine de l'esturgeon européen Acipenser sturio à partir de déclarations de captures. Aquat. Living Resour. 10, 101-109

29. Simpson, P.C., and Fox, D.A. (2009) A contemporary understanding of the Delaware River Atlantic Sturgeon: survival in a highly impacted aquatic ecosystem. In Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic global environment (Haro, A., Smith, K.L., Rulifson, R.A., Moffitt, C.M., Klauda, R.J., Dadswell, M.J., Cunjak, R.A., Cooper, J.E., Beal, K.L., and Aver, T.S., eds), 1-4 p, American Fisheries Society

30. Visser, S., de Bruijne, W., Houbern, B., Roels, B., and Brevé, N.W.P. (2020) Draft First Action Plan for the European Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) for the Lower Rhine Paving the way towards a reintroduction and restoration of the European Sturgeon. 66 p, Ark Nature
Annex 1 Country assessments of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons (2024)
Assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons in France (2024)

<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>GENERAL QUESTIONS</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Respondents</td><td>Ministry of Environment, Regional Direction New Aquitaine;<br>MIGADO (NGO, Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne Charente Seudre);<br>French Biodiversity Office;<br>Bordeaux Seaport;<br>Adour-Garonne Water Agency;<br>French National Committee for Marine Fisheries and Sea Farming (CNPMEM).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. List the STURGEON SPECIES (Latin names) that have been present in your country</td><td>Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio);<br>Historic: Atlantic/Baltic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Which RIVER BASINS are relevant for implementation of actions under the PANEUAP?</td><td>Garonne basin (Garonne, Dordogne, Gironde); Rhine basin.<br>The Rhine basin is not covered in the French National Action Plan.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Which SEA BASINS are relevant for PANEUAP action implementation?</td><td>Atlantic Ocean (East), English Channel and North Sea.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.a. Is there a National Action Plan or National Strategy for sturgeons in place in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.b. If there is a national plan or strategy, what year was it produced/renewed?</td><td>2011</td><td>First phase (2011-2015), extended in a second phase (2020-2029).</td></tr><tr><td>6. Is this national plan or strategy aligned with the PANEUAP?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.a. If this national plan or strategy is aligned with the PANEUAP, how?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The French National Action Plan contributed to the development of the PANEUAP and aims to implement it.</td></tr><tr><td>7.b. If this national plan or strategy is not aligned with the PANEUAP, are there plans to develop an aligned document?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Who has been designated as focal point of the Bern Convention (BC) in your country?</td><td>Dr Gilles ADAM, Ministry of Environment, Regional Direction New Aquitaine. Due to the location of most actions in the New Aquitaine region, the ministry delegated this responsibility of the French Action Plan to its regional branch.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 1 - REMAINING WILD POPULATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL AND DIRECTED REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUALS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.1 - Directed removal of individuals is eliminated</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>9. Is fishing / angling of sturgeons prohibited or regulated in your country?</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td><td>Regulation in place.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>10. Is there a clear procedure in place for providing catch allowances (for scientific purposes) and monitoring them?</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2 / 1.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>11. Are the existing fishing regulations sufficiently enforced?</td><td>Enforcement in place and working</td><td>The enforcement is in place, but the control frequency and awareness raising in fisheries can be improved.</td></tr><tr><td>12. Is Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing (of sturgeons) an issue in your country?</td><td>IUU is under sufficient control</td><td>Nevertheless several cases of poaching have been observed and with increasing stocks the risk of IUU will increase.</td></tr><tr><td>13. Are seizures and cases of IUU recorded?</td><td>Seizures partly recorded</td><td>Depending on the information sources used, this is probably sometimes recorded, but in any case not in an officially dedicated system.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.4</td></tr><tr><td>14. Do you consider the resources and the capacity building opportunities for enforcement authorities overall adequate?</td><td>Resources and capacities for the enforcement are partly in place</td><td>The responses to this question varied greatly and no clear conclusion was possible.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.5</td></tr><tr><td>15. Is the involvement of fishers / anglers / communities in the planning and implementation of conservation actions a practice in your country?</td><td>Practice established</td><td>The National Committee of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture is involved in the French NAP implementation, it is in charge of communication and awareness campaigns dedicated to the fisheries sector. It collects information from bycatch and established a reward system for bycatch reporting.</td></tr><tr><td>16.a. Are affected fishing communities in need of alternative incomes?</td><td>No</td><td>As the sturgeon is protected for more than 40 years it does not constitute a relevant resource for fisheries. Fishing communities are not in need for compensation. They face economic difficulties but not linked to sturgeon conservation.</td></tr><tr><td>16.b. Are there initiatives to develop alternative income sources for affected communities?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.2 - Accidental removal is reduced to levels allowing population recovery</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>17. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch considered an issue in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>As the species is rare, the slightest mortality due a bycatch increases the risk for the species.</td></tr><tr><td>18. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch of sturgeons recorded in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>One of the actions of the French NAP aims to record incidental captures. Information comes by different ways, more and more frequently through the network of fisheries observers (from fishers organization) and local partners. Percentage of bycatch is not known.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>19. Are there management measures in place to avoid bycatch?</td><td>Partly</td><td>A fishing ban has been planned in the MPA near Houtin theoretically to avoid sturgeon bycatch. Regulations dedicating to other species indirectly protect sturgeon, like the trawling ban in estuaries or prohibited fishing seasons.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.3</td></tr><tr><td>20. Is compliance with these measures monitored?</td><td>No</td><td>No evidence of specific monitoring.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.3 - Level of accidental losses of individuals by ship strikes, hydropower and water abstraction facilities is assessed and reduced</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.3.1</td></tr><tr><td>21. Is the information on accidental losses collected and utilized for mitigation?</td><td>Partly</td><td>INRAE records it in the same database as the bycatch. It is an action of the French AP, however the process is not "official"</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.3.2</td></tr><tr><td>22. Are the following losses being addressed by mitigation measures?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SHIP STRIKES No</td><td></td><td>No evidence in France and no mitigation in place.</td></tr><tr><td>HYDROPOWER No</td><td></td><td>Not an issue as habitats used are below impassable dams.</td></tr><tr><td>WATER ABSTRACTION FACILITIES No</td><td></td><td>There have been very few observations of young sturgeons on the filters of the Blayais Nuclear Power Plant. Mitigation measures are in place for all fish, not specifically. The survival vary between species, but as sturgeon is rare we have no idea of the potential impact on individuals.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 1.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td>23.a. Is cross-border cooperation institutionalized regarding coherent fisheries regulations to reduce bycatch or against IUU?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Informal cross-border cooperation in terms of awareness and information (the same documents translated in local languages), but not to reduce bycatch. General fisheries regulations depend on EU and are de facto coordinated between countries.</td></tr><tr><td>23.b. Is cooperation happening at country level?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23.c. Is cooperation institutionalized at country level?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 2 - POPULATION STRUCTURE IS ACTIVELY SUPPORTED TO REVERSE THE DECLINE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>24. Is a release program considered necessary?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25. Are ex-situ measures considered necessary in the country?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.1 - Ex-situ brood stocks are established to secure genetic diversity of all sturgeon populations</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>26. Are there ex-situ programs following best practice guidelines for husbandry (such as IUCN 2013, FAO 570)?</td><td>In place</td><td>INRAE started an ex situ brood stock in 1994, in its facility in St Seurin sur l'Isle. This stock is under the aegis of the Ministry of the Environment and currently operated by an NGO (MIGADO).</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>27. Funding for the construction and operation of ex-situ facilities is secured for:</td><td>1-5 years</td><td>Generally there is no big risk for the continuation of funding.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>28. A national or jointly managed ex-situ programme is:</td><td>In place</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>29. Are there established ex-situ stocks of all (sub-) populations, which are locally critically endangered, using animals genetically certified for species purity and degree of relatedness?</td><td>In place</td><td>There is only one remaining population of A. sturio.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>30. Are there regular quality controls of husbandry practice being performed?</td><td>In place</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.6</strong><br>31. Are there established long-term breeding plans to preserve all available genetic diversity?</td><td>In place</td><td>All individuals of the ex situ stock have been genetically characterized that enabled to establish an optimum crossing plan.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.2 - Reproduction and release programs are in place and being implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.1</strong><br>32. Is the ongoing reproduction and rearing of juveniles following best practice guidelines (such as FAO 570)?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.2</strong><br>33. Are releases taking place from these programs?</td><td>Regularly</td><td>Frequency of releases depends on availability of offspring. It was executed in 1995, 2007-2014, 2022 and 2023.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.3</strong><br>34. Is there monitoring of these releases to control the success rate?</td><td>In place</td><td>Monitoring campaigns are realized by trawling every two months in the Gironde estuary and eDNA samples are performed every fall in the lower part of the basin.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.4</strong><br>35.a. Are releases of exotic species and genotypes prohibited?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>35.b. If 'yes', by which means?</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td><td>Some measures to limit escapement are mandatory, implementation is questionable.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.3.1</strong><br>36. Is cooperation on breeding and release actions in place with neighboring countries?</td><td>Yes</td><td>With Germany from the beginning of the NAP: transfer some of the young sturgeon to Germany i) to strengthen the ex situ stock and ii) to release them in the Elbe basin. More recently, we also transfer some juveniles to the Netherlands to explore their behavior in the delta and to assess habitats suitability.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 3 - STURGEON HABITATS ARE PROTECTED AND RESTORED IN KEY RIVERS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.1 - Existing habitats are identified and protected from deterioration</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.1.1</strong><br>37.a. Have the habitats of sturgeon species been identified in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>37.b. Where are they located?</td><td colspan="2">Through various works, potential spawning grounds in Garonne and Dordogne have been located and are monitored. In the Gironde estuary habitats used by the various age classes are verified. At sea, information depends only on by-catch and modelling. There is an information gap on the characteristics of the freshwater habitats used by juveniles.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>38.a. To which extent have the identified habitats received legal protection?</td><td>Some</td><td>Most of the estuarine and freshwater area used by <em>A. sturio</em> are in areas that benefits of a certain legal protection.</td></tr><tr><td>38.b. Where are the protected areas located?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>The Gironde estuary (FR7200677) and the rivers Garonne (FR7200700) and Dordogne (FR7200660) belong to the Natura 2000 network. Several prefectural decrees of biotope protection focus on Garonne potential spawning grounds (1985, 1990) and more generally fish habitats (2013, 2014, 2015). Additionally two prefectural decrees (1981) prohibit material extraction from the Garonne and Dordogne rivers. Some of the marine habitats located in marine protected areas indirectly benefits of specific management of these areas. The trawling ban, planned for the MPA in front of Hourtin (FR7200812), is also a protection of habitats</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>39.a. Is there a clear understanding of which habitats might be threatened by economic developments?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Clear understanding exists for inland waters (gravel extraction, port development, hydropower in the estuary...), construction of a weir in Garonne river. At sea, it is unclear, because of the lack of knowledge of essential marine habitats.</td></tr><tr><td>39.b. Where are they located?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>See above.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>40. Are such conflicts / threats being addressed by responsible authorities?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Diverse conflicts are being addressed: The closure (fishing ban) in Hourtin is not yet implemented but it induced a strong adverse reaction by fishers. Gravel extraction is prohibited in the Gironde estuary, yet recently a permit has been given to extract sand in the mouth of the estuary within the marine natural park.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.2 - Habitats restored in key rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>41. Have habitat restoration possibilities been identified?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>42. Is there a habitat restoration plan / strategy with sturgeon as target species?</td><td>No</td><td>From analysis of fish growth from several cohorts it seems that feeding areas in the estuary and at sea are functional, we don't know about the functionality of spawning grounds as we have still very few adults observed in river, and we have no idea about the freshwater feeding grounds for juveniles. For the moment the plan is to confirm the use of the spawning grounds and to assess the impacts of water quality on eggs development.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>43. Pilot restoration actions:</td><td>Not been implemented</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">44.a. What type of restoration action?</td><td>Migration facilitation</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Restoration of spawning sites</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Restoration of feeding sites</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>44.b. Where have they been implemented / planned?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.2.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>45. Has monitoring of habitat quality post restoration been implemented?</td><td>Not implemented</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.4.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>46. Is there a need for cross border cooperation on habitat protection and restoration?</td><td>No</td><td>No need in Garonne basin, no plan to improve the passability of Iffezheim dam in the Rhine as too far upstream.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 4 - STURGEON MIGRATION (UP- AND DOWNSTREAM) IS SECURED OR FACILITATED</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 4.1 - No further migration obstacles are built in key sturgeon rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>47.a. Are there plans for building new migration obstacles in key sturgeon rivers?</td><td>Possible but undecided</td><td>Garonne and Dordogne rivers are classified for ecological continuity which includes the good migration of diadromous fish (article L.214.17 from Environmental code). This listing excludes any new continuity obstacles and prioritize improvement on those existing. At the same time, the refurbishing of Beauregard weir on the Garonne, is still attempted by local authorities.</td></tr><tr><td>47.b. If 'yes', are there mitigation measures planned?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>48. Are there legal prerequisites established for future in-river construction development including suitable conditions for sturgeon migration?</td><td>No</td><td>Any new project must comply with the regulations, which means, among other things, to demonstrate that they have no detrimental effect on sturgeon conservation.</td></tr><tr><td>49. Is a minimum bypass of 30% of the discharge at all times established?</td><td>No</td><td>Bypass depends on the legal status of the dam but the total proportion is much less than 30% of the flow.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 4.2 - Migration restored in key sturgeon rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>50. Has the identification of relevant obstacles on migration routes been achieved?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>First obstacles are Bergerac dam on the Dordogne, Beauregard weir, Golfech and Malause dams on the Garonne, Coutras dam on the Dronne, Laubardemont dam on the Isle river and Iffezheim dam on the Rhine.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>51. Has the mitigation of migration obstacles (according to criteria such as: existing stocks, former habitat, existing or former spawning sites, river length, existing habitat, and recolonization potential) been prioritized?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>From a scientific view, due to the present size of the population, there is enough suitable habitats for the European sturgeon below these dams. Further decisions will depend upon the outcome of natural reproductions.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>52. Have feasibility studies for facilitating up- and downstream migration at highest priority barriers been conducted?</td><td>No need at present</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>53. Have funds been allocated for feasibility studies as well as mitigation measures?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.5</strong><br>54. Mitigation measures such as sediment and flow management are established as an integral part of the concession for new or reiterated riparian water rights (mitigation measures to be included into rentability analysis of hydropower developments)?</td><td>No</td><td>Information from respondents varied.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.6</strong><br>55. Have functional passage solutions for sturgeons been implemented?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.7</strong><br>56. Are there any monitoring programs to assess sturgeon passage efficiency?</td><td>No</td><td>Most fish passes are monitored for all fish species.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 4.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.4.1</strong><br>57. Are there any cross-border migration obstacles?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The first dam on the Rhine is located at Iffenzheim at the border between France and Germany, 600km from the delta, it is not equipped for sturgeon crossing.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 5 - TIMELY AND CONTINUOUS DETECTION OF POPULATION SIZES AND CHANGES IN REMAINING WILD STOCKS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 5.1 - Monitoring programs are designed and implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.1</strong><br>58. Is there a competent authority in place (on a national or catchment basis) to establish population monitoring?</td><td>Authority in place</td><td>It is an action of the French NAP, INRAE is in charge of it.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.2</strong><br>59. Is there a monitoring programme designed for sturgeon population(s)?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Yes, it is one of the actions of the French NAP implemented by INRAE.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.3</strong><br>60. Is funding for long-term monitoring secured?</td><td>In progress</td><td>The funding commitment needs to be renewed regularly, but generally, funding doesn't seem to be much of an issue in the mid-term.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.4</strong><br>61. If there is no regular monitoring as yet, are pilot actions already being implemented?</td><td>No</td><td>Monitoring is ongoing</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 5.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>62. Are monitoring programs regularly evaluated and adapted?</td><td>Only partially</td><td>A mid-course evaluation is planned for the French NAP (i.e. 2025).</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 5.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 5.3.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>63. Is monitoring coordinated with other countries for shared populations?</td><td>Yes</td><td>It is not institutionalized, but a representative of the German NAP is a member of the French NAP steering committee and scientists from France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain exchange regularly.</td></tr><tr><td>64. Is an (data) exchange on monitoring results in place? Where? With which countries?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Germany, The Netherlands and Spain, recently enlarged to UK.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 6 - ELIMINATE ILLEGAL TRADE OF ALL STURGEON PRODUCTS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 6.1 - Increased enforcement stronger prosecution achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>65. Are forensic tools (genetic and isotope analysis) for identification of origin and species of sturgeon products in trade accessible and applied?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>66. Do you perform regular market and trade controls on domestic level?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>67. At what level are controls performed?</td><td>Verify proper CITES documentation</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Verify CITES labelling and documentation</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Test samples for compliance (origin and species)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Other</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>68. How do you assess the quality of national inter-agency cooperation regarding enforcement of trade regulations?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>69. How do you rate the specific capacity building for enforcement agencies?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>70. Have you identified issues with labelling compliance in your country?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>71. Caviar labelling on the domestic market is</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>72. The level of sanctions for illegal trade are considered</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 6.2 - Higher awareness of all stakeholders in the caviar trade chain is achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.2.1 / 6.2.2 / 6.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>73. Is the awareness of the following sectors high enough:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Enforcement authorities</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Judiciary</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sturgeon Producers / Traders</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consumers</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 7 - SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING AND REGULATIONS TO ENABLE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 7.1 - Adequate funding instruments for long-term actions are in place</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>74. Is there a coordinated funding plan for the main measures of this action plan, utilizing existing EU funding, national governments or other donors?</td><td>Funding plan in place</td><td>There is an annual meeting of funders.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>75. Do you consider nationally available EU or other funding sources to provide appropriate funding for sturgeon related measures?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The plan used EU funds for regional development in addition to national and regional funds.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 7.2 - Legal prerequisites support sturgeon conservation measures</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>76. Has the conservation of sturgeon habitats and migration routes been adequately considered in navigation plans and projects?</td><td>Under discussion / in progress</td><td>This is not considered a problem, but as a strictly protected species, those involved in maritime transport must ensure that their activities do not hinder the restoration plan.</td></tr><tr><td>77. Have sturgeons been included into the national pledges under the EU Biodiversity Strategy?</td><td>No</td><td>France has not submitted national pledges by Nov 2023.</td></tr><tr><td>78. Do the River Management Plans of your country make reference to sturgeon conservation?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>The species is listed in numerous river management plans.</td></tr><tr><td>79. Which policy instruments / which legal prerequisites are missing on country level for effective sturgeon conservation?</td><td>Legal tools to manage ornamental fish trade. We noticed exotic species in the wild, some from fish farm escapements, but also some released by private individuals who had bought them from pet shops.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 8 - STURGEONS SERVE AS FLAGSHIP SPECIES FOR HEALTHY RIVER ECOSYSTEMS. SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC, POLITICAL ACTORS, AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES HAS INCREASED</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 8.1 - Awareness for sturgeons and the urgency of conservation measure is increased</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 8.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>80. Is the awareness of main stakeholders and authorities considered high enough?</td><td>Medium</td><td>Increased stakeholder information seems to be required despite the long-term activities that have been carried out. Fishers (commercial and recreational) as they can have a direct impact if they don't know the species its status and how to behave properly. Port authorities require more information to be able to adapt their practices (i.e. dredging), and state representatives when they have to arbitrate conflicts and decisions.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 8.2 - International exchange between relevant stakeholders is increased</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 8.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>81. Is inter-agency / inter-sectoral cooperation facilitated for sturgeon conservation on a national level?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Through the national focal point and the NAP committee composition.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 8.2.2</strong><br>82. Is there an active participation of your country in international expert exchange? (Examples: Helcom, Bern Convention, OSPAR; etc.)</td><td>Participates actively</td><td>Usually participation is ensured by a scientist involved in the programme with a mandate from the BC focal point.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 9 - MONITOR AND EVALUATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 9.1 - Responsibilities for AP implementation clarified and regular monitoring and evaluation conducted</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 9.1.1</strong><br>83. Has your government appointed a focal point/coordinator responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Yes, Gilles Adam has been appointed as Focal Point.</td></tr><tr><td>84. Does the focal point have a mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The person is also in charge of the lead of the NAP committee.</td></tr><tr><td>85. Is there any reporting or evaluation mechanism of the national sturgeon AP or the PANEUAP implementation on national level?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Expected in 2025.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons in Germany - North Sea (2024)

<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>GENERAL QUESTIONS</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Respondents</td><td colspan="2">Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV); Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB); Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN); Federal Institute of Hydrology.</td></tr><tr><td>2. List the STURGEON SPECIES (Latin names) that have been present in your country</td><td colspan="2">Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio);</td></tr><tr><td>3. Which RIVER BASINS are relevant for implementation of actions under the PANEUAP?</td><td colspan="2">Elbe and Rhine (potentially Ems, Weser, Eider)</td></tr><tr><td>4. Which SEA BASINS are relevant for PANEUAP action implementation?</td><td colspan="2">North Sea</td></tr><tr><td>5.a. Is there a National Action Plan or National Strategy for sturgeons in place in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.b. If there is a national plan or strategy, what year was it produced/renewed?</td><td>2010</td><td>A revision is planned for 2024/25.</td></tr><tr><td>6. Is this national plan or strategy aligned with the PANEUAP?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.a. If this national plan or strategy is aligned with the PANEUAP, how?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The plan is based upon the Bern Convention Action Plan for Acipenser sturio.</td></tr><tr><td>7.b. If this national plan or strategy is not aligned with the PANEUAP, are there plans to develop an aligned document?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Who has been designated as focal point of the Bern Convention (BC) in your country?</td><td colspan="2">Germany has not appointed a national sturgeon focal point.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 1 - REMAINING WILD POPULATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL AND DIRECTED REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUALS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 1.1 - Directed removal of individuals is eliminated</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9. Is fishing / angling of sturgeons prohibited or regulated in your country?</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td><td>Sturgeons are protected under the national nature conservation laws as well as under the fisheries regulations of the Federal States.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Question</td><td>Rating</td><td>Explanation / Comments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>10. Is there a clear procedure in place for providing catch allowances (for scientific purposes) and monitoring them?</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td><td>An exemption can be granted upon request through the Federal States if public interest in the outcome of the scientific experiment/assessment is overriding.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2 / 1.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>11. Are the existing fishing regulations sufficiently enforced?</td><td>Enforcement lacking</td><td>Enforcement is not systematic and too scarce, penalties are not sufficient to prevent illegal removal of fish. This problem could arise if sturgeons were more numerous after a successful reintroduction.</td></tr><tr><td>12. Is Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing (of sturgeons) an issue in your country?</td><td>IUU is an issue</td><td>IUU fishing (poaching) has been witnessed both in riverine and coastal fisheries, in cases when prosecution took place, the penalties were non-existent or extremely low. At the moment there are not enough sturgeons for significant IUU fishing but it would be a key problem when population will increase.</td></tr><tr><td>13. Are seizures and cases of IUU recorded?</td><td>Seizures partly recorded</td><td>When bycatch is landed, confiscation of illegal catch can take place if the enforcement agency has capacities. Even in that case it does not appear that there is an official recording process.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.4</td></tr><tr><td>14. Do you consider the resources and the capacity building opportunities for enforcement authorities overall adequate?</td><td>There is a distinct lack of resources and capacities</td><td>Fisheries inspections are too few, are closely related with the fishery in some areas and refrain from official action.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.5</td></tr><tr><td>15. Is the involvement of fishers / anglers / communities in the planning and implementation of conservation actions a practice in your country?</td><td>Practice partially in place</td><td>Fisheries in the regions where releases and recovery take place are informed and involved locally in rearing, releases, recapture reporting and informed about planned activities.</td></tr><tr><td>16.a. Are affected fishing communities in need of alternative incomes?</td><td>No</td><td>European sturgeon disappeared a long time ago as such the fishery is not to be compensated for not targeting sturgeons. But if fisheries are affected by catch regulations, gear restrictions and gear development or by closed seasons/closed areas for the protection of surgeons and as a consequence are losing a part of their income the need to be remunerated/supported arises.</td></tr><tr><td>16.b. Are there initiatives to develop alternative income sources for affected communities?</td><td>Yes (it is an ongoing practice)</td><td>The initiatives are not specific for sturgeon.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.2 - Accidental removal is reduced to levels allowing population recovery</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>17. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch considered an issue in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Commercial fisheries are largely overlapping with the range of sturgeons. Marine and freshwater bycatch is reported by fishers. Marine bycatch is considered as being a severe impact to reestablished stocks. It has the potential to make reintroduction impossible. The reporting rate is unknown.</td></tr><tr><td>18. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch of sturgeons recorded in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Voluntary reports are made available. In some regions reporting is lacking completely.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>19. Are there management measures in place to avoid bycatch?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Gear modifications are tested, gear restrictions are implemented, closed areas are designated (not specifically for sturgeons), monitoring of bycatch is lacking.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.2.3</td></tr><tr><td>20. Is compliance with these measures monitored?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Protected areas with fishery restrictions are surveyed for ships > 12m equipped with VMS, gear control and fisheries inspections are in charge of compliance with other measures in the German EEZ. Federal Ministry for agriculture and food (BLE), implemented through the coastguard.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.3 - Level of accidental losses of individuals by ship strikes, hydropower and water abstraction facilities is assessed and reduced</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.3.1</td></tr><tr><td>21. Is the information on accidental losses collected and utilized for mitigation?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Information about bycatch and mortalities (accidental losses washed ashore or reported) are collected on a voluntary basis. The data are stored in a database for catch reports and sightings (with pictures if available) which are submitted by fisheries inspections, fishers, anglers, stakeholders and general public through a network of contacts. The information is used to raise awareness with the relevant stakeholders.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.3.2</td></tr><tr><td>22. Are the following losses being addressed by mitigation measures?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SHIP STRIKES</td><td>Partly</td><td>Ship strikes/Dredging fatalities in the Elbe River have been used to limit the time of year when dredging is performed (closed season).</td></tr><tr><td>HYDROPOWER</td><td>No</td><td>Mortalities not systematically assessed and reported, no mitigation for sturgeon implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>WATER ABSTRACTION FACILITIES</td><td>No</td><td>Mortalities not systematically assessed and reported, no mitigation for sturgeon implemented.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 1.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td>23.a. Is cross-border cooperation institutionalized regarding coherent fisheries regulations to reduce bycatch or against IUU?</td><td>Yes</td><td>In the frame of the EU wide regulation implementation.</td></tr><tr><td>23.b. Is cooperation happening at country level?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23.c. Is cooperation institutionalized at country level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>In the frame of the Wadden Sea, there is a convention with Denmark, Netherlands, UK.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 2 - POPULATION STRUCTURE IS ACTIVELY SUPPORTED TO REVERSE THE DECLINE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>24. Is a release program considered necessary?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes, the species in North Sea is considered extinct in the German range.</td></tr><tr><td>25. Are ex-situ measures considered necessary in the country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>As agreed with France, Germany runs an ex-situ program as a safeguarding measure.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.1 - Ex situ brood stocks are established to secure genetic diversity of all sturgeon populations</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>26. Are there ex-situ programs following best practice guidelines for husbandry (such as IUCN 2013, FAO 570)?</td><td>In place</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>27. Funding for the construction and operation of ex-situ facilities is secured for:</td><td>1-5 years</td><td>The maintenance of ex situ stock for <em>A. sturio</em> is funded through a mix of sources, base funding for infrastructure and personnel is provided by institutions - Leibniz-Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (<em>A. sturio</em>) on their premises. Cost coverage for feed and equipment is project funded. Currently, attempts are made for the establishment of an outsourced stand-alone facility for the European sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>28. A national or jointly managed ex-situ programme is:</td><td>In place</td><td>Based upon the National Action Plan for <em>A. sturio</em> the broodstock facilities are managed jointly by the scientists involved. The ex-situ program is integrated in regional cooperation with the respective range states.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.4</strong><br>29. Are there established ex-situ stocks of all (sub-) populations, which are locally critically endangered, using animals genetically certified for species purity and degree of relatedness?</td><td>In place</td><td>Broodstocks are genetically characterized as a basis for reproduction planning.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.5</strong><br>30. Are there regular quality controls of husbandry practice being performed?</td><td>In place</td><td>Husbandry practice is evaluated and attempts for its improvement are planned on a national and a regional basis.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.6</strong><br>31. Are there established long-term breeding plans to preserve all available genetic diversity?</td><td>In place</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.2 - Reproduction and release programs are in place and being implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.1</strong><br>32. Is the ongoing reproduction and rearing of juveniles following best practice guidelines (such as FAO 570)?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Where applicable and for selected life phases fish are reared with a focus on fitness for release. For some phases in the process the respective methods are still under development.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.2</strong><br>33. Are releases taking place from these programs?</td><td>Occasionally</td><td>A. <i>sturio</i> releases have taken place between 2008 and 2015 due to a shortage of mature broodstock after 2014 they have been stopped until 2024.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.3</strong><br>34. Is there monitoring of these releases to control the success rate?</td><td>Partially</td><td>Monitoring takes place through bycatch data (voluntarily) and for experimental releases (targeted fishing) as well as Natura 2000 monitoring (Elbe River).</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.4</strong><br>35.a. Are releases of exotic species and genotypes prohibited?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Fisheries management is focusing on native species, releases of exotics are requiring a permit. This does not prevent illegal releases.</td></tr><tr><td>35.b. If 'yes', by which means?</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td><td>Releases are regulated under the jurisdiction of the Federal States. Some States require management plans for releases and follow up on their implementation. In other States the enforcement is lacking.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 2.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 2.3.1</td></tr><tr><td>36. Is cooperation on breeding and release actions in place with neighboring countries?</td><td>Yes</td><td>France: Exchange of genetic material for broodstock development and releases.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 3 - STURGEON HABITATS ARE PROTECTED AND RESTORED IN KEY RIVERS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 3.1 - Existing habitats are identified and protected from deterioration</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 3.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>37.a. Have the habitats of sturgeon species been identified in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>The habitats were assessed based on hydromorphology for the middle Elbe River as well as the Lower Rhine River. For the Oste and Stör Rivers as well as the middle and parts of the tidal Elbe they were verified through telemetry.</td></tr><tr><td>37.b. Where are they located?</td><td>Habitat assessments have been carried out in the river catchments relevant for restoration (mainly Elbe, partly Rhine through the identification of potential spawning grounds and of juvenile feeding habitats through telemetry). Estuarine habitats and marine habitats have also been identified through telemetry and bycatch recording.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 3.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>38.a. To which extent have the identified habitats received legal protection?</td><td>None</td><td>In Germany, large rivers are Federal waterways and no protection was granted for habitats in these.</td></tr><tr><td>38.b. Where are the protected areas located?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 3.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>39.a. Is there a clear understanding of which habitats might be threatened by economic developments?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mainly freshwater and estuarine habitats are massively threatened by navigation projects. Thermal effluents and damming are currently of less concern since no new facilities are planned in the immediate habitats of the species. Estuarine and marine habitats might be affected by the development of LNG Liquified Natural Gas) terminals in coastal waters and resulting pollution.</td></tr><tr><td>39.b. Where are they located?</td><td>Freshwater/Estuaries</td><td>Recent navigation projects in Elbe are affecting the freshwater habitats, leading to further habitat loss through increasing attempts to deepen and regulate the rivers. In the estuarine area mainly dredging for the construction of shipping lanes and dumping of sediment affects the quality of habitats, increases the risk of oxygen deficiencies and directly affect fish (Mortalities through dredge impacts).</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.1.4</strong><br>40. Are such conflicts / threats being addressed by responsible authorities?</td><td>No</td><td>They are or should be addressed in environmental impact studies/assessments. However, since sturgeons are reintroduced (often not present yet) and because of deficits in knowledge about potentially important habitats or migration routes, these threats are not adequately considered.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.2 - Habitats restored in key rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.1</strong><br>41. Have habitat restoration possibilities been identified?</td><td>Partly / In progress</td><td>Migration facilitation and habitat improvement have been identified and potential been described. Implementation is lacking. There is still much uncertainty about which measures might be appropriate to restore spawning and juvenile habitats. There is also uncertainty about where to realize such measures for maximum benefit.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.2</strong><br>42. Is there a habitat restoration plan / strategy with sturgeon as target species?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.3</strong><br>43. Pilot restoration actions:</td><td>Not been implemented</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">44.a. What type of restoration action?</td><td>X Migration facilitation</td><td>The fishway Geesthacht/Elbe explicitly considers sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td>Restoration of spawning sites</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Restoration of feeding sites</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>44.b. Where have they been implemented / planned?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.4</strong><br>45. Has monitoring of habitat quality post restoration been implemented?</td><td>Not implemented</td><td>Only general monitoring without explicitly addressing sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.4.1</strong><br>46. Is there a need for cross border cooperation on habitat protection and restoration?</td><td>Yes</td><td>In marine habitats where fishing rights under international treaties are affected, transnational coordination is required (North Sea with UK, Netherlands, Denmark etc.) Negotiations in the Wadden Sea Commission on fisheries regulations in the protected areas of the Dogger Bank and Sylt Outer Reef.<br>It is discussed and harmonized in river commissions and implemented on a national level.<br>Cooperation in marine areas is partially organized by OSPAR.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 4 - STURGEON MIGRATION (UP- AND DOWNSTREAM) IS SECURED OR FACILITATED.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 4.1 - No further migration obstacles are built in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>47.a. Are there plans for building new migration obstacles in key sturgeon rivers?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>47.b. If 'yes', are there mitigation measures planned?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>48. Are there legal prerequisites established for future in-river construction development including suitable conditions for sturgeon migration?</td><td>No</td><td>Recommendations exist. Implementation lies with the navigation authorities and is not mandatory.</td></tr><tr><td>49. Is a minimum bypass of 30% of the discharge at all times established?</td><td>No</td><td>This is requested, but in practice this has not been included in the legislation (yet).</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 4.2 - Migration restored in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>50. Has the identification of relevant obstacles on migration routes been achieved?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Migration obstacles were identified in the preparatory work for the reestablishment of A. sturio in the Elbe River (Gessner et al. 2010, 2014). For the Rhine River the first obstacle is located in Ilfetzheim, more than 600km from the sea, while recovery actions are planned only for the lower 300 km of the river.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>51. Has the mitigation of migration obstacles (according to criteria such as: existing stocks, former habitat, existing or former spawning sites, river length, existing habitat, and recolonization potential) been prioritized?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Yes for the Elbe and its confluence, the Mulde River in Germany, not for the Havel River on a Federal level; not for the Rhine.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.3</strong><br>52. Have feasibility studies for facilitating up and downstream migration at highest priority barriers been conducted?</td><td>In progress</td><td>For several obstacles, the feasibility has not been fully verified. In several places the construction of mitigation facilities has been completed.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.4</strong><br>53. Have funds been allocated for feasibility studies as well as mitigation measures?</td><td>In progress</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.5</strong><br>54. Mitigation measures such as sediment and flow management are established as an integral part of the concession for new or reiterated riparian water rights (mitigation measures to be included into rentability analysis of hydropower developments)?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.6</strong><br>55. Have functional passage solutions for sturgeons been implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>On the mainstem Elbe River and at the lowermost dam in its tributary Mulde River. Not in other rivers in the catchment (Oste, Havel), in the Rhine (not at Haringvliet, Iffenzheim) but presumably at Ijsselmeer.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.7</strong><br>56. Are there any monitoring programs to assess sturgeon passage efficiency?</td><td>No</td><td>The initial monitoring on the mainstem Elbe weir at Geesthacht was stopped after 3 years. No routine monitoring is currently carried out. Functionality of fish passage has been shown but not on sturgeons due to their absence.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 4.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.4.1</strong><br>57. Are there any cross-border migration obstacles?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The first dam on the Rhine in Iffenzheim is a cross border obstacle shared by Germany and France.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 5 - TIMELY AND CONTINUOUS DETECTION OF POPULATION SIZES AND CHANGES IN REMAINING WILD STOCKS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 5.1 - Monitoring programs are designed and implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>58. Is there a competent authority in place (on a national or catchment basis) to establish population monitoring?</td><td>No</td><td>Due to a lack of funding, no regular monitoring is carried out besides the limited efforts for Natura 2000 monitoring.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.2</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>59. Is there a monitoring programme designed for sturgeon population(s)?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>A program is in the planning stage, awaiting the guideline to be developed from the EU project and to be implemented through the renewed national AP.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.3</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>60. Is funding for long-term monitoring secured?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.4</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>61. If there is no regular monitoring as yet, are pilot actions already being implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Bycatch data and telemetry studies are used to assess the condition of the population and their habitat utilization.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.1.5</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>62. Are monitoring programs regularly evaluated and adapted?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 5.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 5.3.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>63. Is monitoring coordinated with other countries for shared populations?</td><td>No</td><td>Only for bycatch assessment at sea. With France, the Netherlands, UK, Denmark.</td></tr><tr><td>64. Is an (data) exchange on monitoring results in place? Where? With which countries?</td><td>Partly/planned</td><td>Bycatch database is under establishment to facilitate comparison and analysis.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 6 - ELIMINATE ILLEGAL TRADE OF ALL STURGEON PRODUCTS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 6.1 - Increased enforcement stronger prosecution achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 6.1.1</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>65. Are forensic tools (genetic and isotope analysis) for identification of origin and species of sturgeon products in trade accessible and applied?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Tools are available but application is restricted by costs for the analysis and the focus of the enforcement agencies that do not consider illegal caviar trade a relevant issue.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>66. Do you perform regular market and trade controls on domestic level?</td><td>Irregularly / Partly</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">67. At what level are controls performed?</td><td>X Verify proper CITES documentation</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>X Verify CITES labelling and documentation</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Test samples for compliance (origin and species)</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>68. How do you assess the quality of national inter-agency cooperation regarding enforcement of trade regulations?</td><td>Insufficient</td><td>There is little exchange and the limited activities are hampered by the lack of dedicated personnel and resources.</td></tr><tr><td>69. How do you rate the specific capacity building for enforcement agencies?</td><td>Insufficient</td><td>Not considered a priority.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>70. Have you identified issues with labelling compliance in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>In occasional controls issues with labelling (false application, lacking labels etc.) were reported.</td></tr><tr><td>71. Caviar labelling on the domestic market is</td><td>In place</td><td>Mandatory for all EU states.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>72. The level of sanctions for illegal trade are considered</td><td>Medium</td><td>In several cases the traders have referred back to good faith in the information provided by the supplier. No charges are known in these cases.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 6.2 - Higher awareness of all stakeholders in the caviar trade chain is achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 6.2.1 / 6.2.2 / 6.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>73. Is the awareness of the following sectors high enough:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Enforcement authorities</td><td>Medium</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Judiciary</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sturgeon Producers / Traders</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consumers</td><td>Medium</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 7 - SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING AND REGULATIONS TO ENABLE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 7.1 - Adequate funding instruments for long-term actions are in place</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>74. Is there a coordinated funding plan for the main measures of this action plan, utilizing existing EU funding, national governments or other donors?</td><td>Not done yet</td><td>The activities undertaken in the frame of the action plan are funded by third party funding through research institutions. No institutional funding is associated to the AP implementation.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>75. Do you consider nationally available EU or other funding sources to provide appropriate funding for sturgeon related measures?</td><td>Partly</td><td>The timing of available funding does not match the requirements. The short time periods for project funding puts the continuity of measures as well as resources at risk, in particular for long term obligations such as broodstock management and maintenance as well as releases and monitoring.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 7.2 - Legal prerequisites support sturgeon conservation measures</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 7.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>76. Has the conservation of sturgeon habitats and migration routes been adequately considered in navigation plans and projects?</td><td>No</td><td>Sturgeon are not an accepted target of the migration facilitation and due to their extirpation in the past the success of the recovery is used as a criterion to postpone such decisions</td></tr><tr><td>77. Have sturgeons been included into the national pledges under the EU Biodiversity Strategy?</td><td>No</td><td>Germany is one of the very few countries that submitted pledges. No sturgeon species is included.</td></tr><tr><td>78. Do the River Management Plans of your country make reference to sturgeon conservation?</td><td>No</td><td>Not generally considered a target. Also, the exclusion as a criterion for the good status for the WFD hinders the inclusion in the management plans and later on it handicaps the implementation of habitat related measures.</td></tr><tr><td>79. Which policy instruments / which legal prerequisites are missing on country level for effective sturgeon conservation?</td><td>Prioritization of conservation targets, intersectoral collaboration, effective collaboration between different administrations (nature protection, navigation, fisheries, spatial planning) on both the Federal and the regional level, effective implementation of the AP including designation of Focal Point as coordinator.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OBJECTIVE 8 - STURGEONS SERVE AS FLAGSHIP SPECIES FOR HEALTHY RIVER ECOSYSTEMS. SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC, POLITICAL ACTORS, AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES HAS INCREASED</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 8.1 - Awareness for sturgeons and the urgency of conservation measure is increased</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 8.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>80. Is the awareness of main stakeholders and authorities considered high enough?</td><td>Medium</td><td>The awareness is lacking or the implementation is of low priority in inland navigation authorities who are also responsible for in-river restoration. In fisheries the awareness is high and compliance in river and coastal fisheries is sufficient, although it needs constant reiteration.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 8.2 - International exchange between relevant stakeholders is increased</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 8.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>81. Is inter-agency / inter-sectoral cooperation facilitated for sturgeon conservation on a national level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Cooperation is in place between fisheries, nature conservation and spatial planning, but the cooperation is not effective enough due to discrepancies in targets</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 8.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>82. Is there an active participation of your country in international expert exchange? (Examples: Helcom, Bern Convention, OSPAR; etc.)</td><td>Participates actively</td><td>Project personnel and national representatives are involved in OSPAR, and ICES groups that address sturgeon conservation and bycatch. To the BC no Focal Point has been nominated.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 9 - MONITOR AND EVALUATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 9.1 - Responsibilities for AP implementation clarified and regular monitoring and evaluation conducted</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 9.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>83. Has your government appointed a focal point/coordinator responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>No</td><td>No focal point was designated since the Ministry of Environment was unable to identify a volunteer.</td></tr><tr><td>84. Does the focal point have a mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>85. Is there any reporting or evaluation mechanism of the national sturgeon AP or the PANEUAP implementation on national level?</td><td>No</td><td>For the NAP implemented 2010 no deadline and no evaluation was considered. The new NAP will be developed 2024/5 and will cover a 10 year period and a mid term evaluation.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons in The Netherlands (2024)

<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>GENERAL QUESTIONS</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Respondents</td><td>Royal Dutch Angling Alliance;<br>Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality;<br>Ark Nature.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2. List the STURGEON SPECIES (Latin names) that have been present in your country</td><td>Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio),<br>Historic: Atlantic/Baltic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)<br>A. sturio was reproducing in the Rhine system until recently. Historic distribution of A. oxyrinchus is known from excavations and coastal catches.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. Which RIVER BASINS are relevant for implementation of actions under the PANEUAP?</td><td>The Rhine, the Ijsel, the Meuse and the Scheldt.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Which SEA BASINS are relevant for PANEUAP action implementation?</td><td>All 4 rivers had sturgeon catches and historically were inhabited by sturgeon; current work focuses on the Rhine.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.a. Is there a National Action Plan or National Strategy for sturgeons in place in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>National Strategy framed now within the Rhine Action Plan and validated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The aim of the strategy is to test the viability of reintroduction.</td></tr><tr><td>5.b. If there is a national plan or strategy, what year was it produced/renewed?</td><td>2020</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. Is this national plan or strategy aligned with the PANEUAP?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.a. If this national plan or strategy is aligned with the PANEUAP, how?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The national Action Plan mirrors the 'European Action Plan for the Conservation and Restoration of the European Sturgeon' adopted under the Bern Convention in 2007 and the 'Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons' adopted under the Bern Convention in 2018.</td></tr><tr><td>7.b. If this national plan or strategy is not aligned with the PANEUAP, are there plans to develop an aligned document?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8. Who has been designated as focal point of the Bern Convention (BC) in your country?</td><td>The LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) as a ministry and Menno de RIDDER as a person.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 1 - REMAINING WILD POPULATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL AND DIRECTED REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUALS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.1 - Directed removal of individuals is eliminated</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>9. Is fishing / angling of sturgeons prohibited or regulated in your country?</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td><td>Fishing is prohibited for all sturgeon species in the wild, it is only allowed in private waters for exotic sturgeons.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>10. Is there a clear procedure in place for providing catch allowances (for scientific purposes) and monitoring them?</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td><td>Separate permissions are required to catch and handle individuals, to practice experimental releases (Fauna and Flora permit) and to import individual fish (CITES permit).</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.2 / 1.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>11. Are the existing fishing regulations sufficiently enforced?</td><td>Enforcement partly working</td><td>Enforcement is lacking in the marine area. The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) monitors professional fishermen on inland waters. Sportvisserij Nederland monitors sport fishermen on inland waters, they have a reasonable enforcement capacity. However, recent research revealed that some migratory species (such as salmon and trout) are unlawfully taken by recreational fishers after they are caught.</td></tr><tr><td>12. Is Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing (of sturgeons) an issue in your country?</td><td>Can be neglected</td><td>There is no poaching yet; only accidental bycatch, the species is too scarce to be poached.</td></tr><tr><td>13. Are seizures and cases of IUU recorded?</td><td>Seizures not recorded</td><td>There is no official recording. IUU is claimed to be non existing</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.4</td></tr><tr><td>14. Do you consider the resources and the capacity building opportunities for enforcement authorities overall adequate?</td><td>Resources and capacities for the enforcement are partly in place</td><td>There are not enough staff to control all fisheries; enforcement identifies priorities for control.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 1.1.5</td></tr><tr><td>15. Is the involvement of fishers / anglers / communities in the planning and implementation of conservation actions a practice in your country?</td><td>Practice established</td><td>NGOs involve stakeholders in the preparation of plans, communication and awareness raising and information to fishers has been established. But cooperation with fisheries has decreased over time.</td></tr><tr><td>16.a. Are affected fishing communities in need of alternative incomes?</td><td>No</td><td>Sturgeon fisheries disappeared in the Netherlands more than 70 years ago. Alternative income scenarios for the compensation of economic losses caused by conservation measures have not yet been considered.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>16.b. Are there initiatives to develop alternative income sources for affected communities?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not relevant.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 1.2 - Accidental removal is reduced to levels allowing population recovery</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>17. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch considered an issue in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Regular bycatch in North sea is observed this is a priority issue.</td></tr><tr><td>18. Is (marine / freshwater) bycatch of sturgeons recorded in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Not officially, only voluntary records transmitted to NGOs and recorded.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>19. Are there management measures in place to avoid bycatch?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Not specifically for sturgeon, gear restriction, minimum size mesh are applied in other fisheries. Key migration areas are designated to become closed areas for fisheries.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>20. Is compliance with these measures monitored?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Wageningen Marine Research did this work on a project base, marine observers are used and camera systems are to be installed in the future.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 1.3 - Level of accidental losses of individuals by ship strikes, hydropower and water abstraction facilities is assessed and reduced</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.3.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>21. Is the information on accidental losses collected and utilized for mitigation?</td><td>No</td><td>Only voluntary records by NGOs.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 1.3.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">22. Are the following losses being addressed by mitigation measures?</td></tr><tr><td>SHIP STRIKES No</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>HYDROPOWER No</td><td></td><td>Hydropower dams are located on tributaries only, the first dam on the main stem is more than 600 km upstream and currently is not considered a limiting factor for sturgeon recovery.</td></tr><tr><td>WATER ABSTRACTION FACILITIES No</td><td></td><td>There aren't known abstraction facilities that could potentially harm migratory fish.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 1.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</td></tr><tr><td>23.a. Is cross-border cooperation institutionalized regarding coherent fisheries regulations to reduce bycatch or against IUU?</td><td>No</td><td>Not beyond the implementation of Common Fishery Policy. The coordination would be helpful if the implementation in the different states would be functional. ICES WGDIAD definitely has emphasized the need for coordinated legislation and measures to be taken. It is the implementation that is lacking.</td></tr><tr><td>23.b. Is cooperation happening at country level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Yes, with anglers and environmental NGOs but less and less with commercial fishers.</td></tr><tr><td>23.c. Is cooperation institutionalized at country level?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 2 - POPULATION STRUCTURE IS ACTIVELY SUPPORTED TO REVERSE THE DECLINE</td></tr><tr><td>24. Is a release program considered necessary?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Sturgeon is currently extinct. The decision for release programme will depend on ongoing research and experimental releases in the frame of the current Action Plan to assess the feasibility of reintroductions in the Rhine basin.</td></tr><tr><td>25. Are ex-situ measures considered necessary in the country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The decision has not yet been taken, it will depend on results from experiments about the suitability of the Rhine basin.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 2.1 - Ex-situ brood stocks are established to secure genetic diversity of all sturgeon populations</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 2.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>26. Are there ex-situ programs following best practice guidelines for husbandry (such as IUCN 2013, FAO 570)?</td><td>Not existing</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 2.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>27. Funding for the construction and operation of ex-situ facilities is secured for:</td><td>Not secured</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 2.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>28. A national or jointly managed ex-situ programme is:</td><td>Not existing</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.4</strong><br>29. Are there established ex-situ stocks of all (sub-) populations, which are locally critically endangered, using animals genetically certified for species purity and degree of relatedness?</td><td>Not existing</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.5</strong><br>30. Are there regular quality controls of husbandry practice being performed?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.6</strong><br>31. Are there established long-term breeding plans to preserve all available genetic diversity?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 2.2 - Reproduction and release programs are in place and being implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.1</strong><br>32. Is the ongoing reproduction and rearing of juveniles following best practice guidelines (such as FAO 570)?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.2</strong><br>33. Are releases taking place from these programs?</td><td>Occasionally</td><td>Releases are taking place in the framework of experiments in 2012, 2015, and 2023.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.3</strong><br>34. Is there monitoring of these releases to control the success rate?</td><td>Partially</td><td>The migration and fate of released fish is assessed in telemetry experiments.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.4</strong><br>35.a. Are releases of exotic species and genotypes prohibited?</td><td>Yes</td><td>However, it happens numerous times a year from private ponds and gardens.</td></tr><tr><td>35.b. If 'yes', by which means?</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 2.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 2.3.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>36. Is cooperation on breeding and release actions in place with neighbouring countries?</td><td>Yes</td><td>With France and Germany at several levels.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 3 - STURGEON HABITATS ARE PROTECTED AND RESTORED IN KEY RIVERS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.1 - Existing habitats are identified and protected from deterioration</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>37.a. Have the habitats of sturgeon species been identified in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>A lot of work have been done to locate and characterize essential habitats; however, questions remain for the delta and riverine sections.</td></tr><tr><td>37.b. Where are they located?</td><td>In freshwater, in the delta and at sea.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>38.a. To which extent have the identified habitats received legal protection?</td><td>None</td><td>As long as the species is extinct in the Netherlands, its habitats cannot benefit from specific protection.</td></tr><tr><td>38.b. Where are the protected areas located?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>39.a. Is there a clear understanding of which habitats might be threatened by economic developments?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Estuarine habitats are very important and a large part is located within the port of Rotterdam areas. Industrial estate and new developments could modify or impact sturgeon habitats functionality.</td></tr><tr><td>39.b. Where are they located?</td><td>Mainly in the delta.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>40. Are such conflicts / threats being addressed by responsible authorities?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Regulation is in place for diadromous and estuarine fish species, but not specifically for sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.2 - Habitats restored in key rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 3.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>41. Have habitat restoration possibilities been identified?</td><td>Partly / In progress</td><td>Promising areas are the delta (Haringvliet) with the reconnection to the sea. Other areas depend upon the ongoing telemetry results.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.2</strong><br>42. Is there a habitat restoration plan / strategy with sturgeon as target species?</td><td>Yes</td><td>The sturgeon action plan is incorporated in the Rhine delta recovery plan.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.3</strong><br>43. Pilot restoration actions:<br>44.a. What type of restoration action?</td><td>Are being planned or in progress<br>X Migration facilitation<br>Restoration of spawning sites<br>Restoration of feeding sites<br>Other</td><td>Migration facilitation between Ijselmeer and the North Sea, using a special fishway and increasing of the connection between Haringvliet and the North Sea.<br>No<br>No<br>No</td></tr><tr><td>44.b. Where have they been implemented / planned?</td><td>Between Ijselmeer and Wadden Sea in the North and between Haringvliet and the North Sea in the South.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.2.4</strong><br>45. Has monitoring of habitat quality post restoration been implemented?</td><td>Ongoing / Planned</td><td>Not specifically for sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 3.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 3.4.1</strong><br>46. Is there a need for cross border cooperation on habitat protection and restoration?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Cooperation is existing with Germany within an INTERREG project for feeding and spawning areas (delta and marine areas). Also with Belgium and UK at sea for marine areas. More generally, regular cooperation is ongoing through the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). The Netherlands is represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water quality. And along the Wadden Sea habitats with Germany and Denmark.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 4 - STURGEON MIGRATION (UP- AND DOWNSTREAM) IS SECURED OR FACILITATED.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 4.1 - No further migration obstacles are built in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>47.a. Are there plans for building new migration obstacles in key sturgeon rivers?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>47.b. If 'yes', are there mitigation measures planned?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>48. Are there legal prerequisites established for future in-river construction development including suitable conditions for sturgeon migration?</td><td>Achieved</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>49. Is a minimum bypass of 30% of the discharge at all times established?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 4.2 - Migration restored in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>50. Has the identification of relevant obstacles on migration routes been achieved?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>GIS maps available.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>ACTION 4.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>51. Has the mitigation of migration obstacles (according to criteria such as: existing stocks, former habitat, existing or former spawning sites, river length, existing habitat, and recolonization potential) been prioritized?</td><td>In progress</td><td>The list of priorities have been established but without considering sturgeon characteristics and behaviour (except the one between IJsselmeer and the North Sea). There are no obstacles in the Rhine for sturgeon migration.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.3</strong><br>52. Have feasibility studies for facilitating up and downstream migration at highest priority barriers been conducted?</td><td>In progress</td><td>According to the Water Framework Directive, not specifically for sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.4</strong><br>53. Have funds been allocated for feasibility studies as well as mitigation measures?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Not specifically for sturgeon.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.5</strong><br>54. Mitigation measures such as sediment and flow management are established as an integral part of the concession for new or reiterated riparian water rights (mitigation measures to be included into rentability analysis of hydropower developments)?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.6</strong><br>55. Have functional passage solutions for sturgeons been implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>There are two cases with work in progress, the new fishway between Ijsselmeer and the Wadden sea and an increasing number of open sluices in Haringvliet dam.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.2.7</strong><br>56. Are there any monitoring programs to assess sturgeon passage efficiency?</td><td>No</td><td>Only during experiments, using telemetry tools.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>RESULT 4.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 4.4.1</strong><br>57. Are there any cross-border migration obstacles?</td><td>No</td><td>The main stem of the Rhine is open, there are several cross border obstacles in tributaries but migrating fish would be blocked below by Dutch hydropower dams.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 5 - TIMELY AND CONTINUOUS DETECTION OF POPULATION SIZES AND CHANGES IN REMAINING WILD STOCKS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 5.1 - Monitoring programs are designed and implemented</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>58. Is there a competent authority in place (on a national or catchment basis) to establish population monitoring?</td><td>Authority in place</td><td>Rijkswaterstraat has the competences but is not in charge yet.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>59. Is there a monitoring programme designed for sturgeon population(s)?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>60. Is funding for long-term monitoring secured?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.1.4</td></tr><tr><td>61. If there is no regular monitoring as yet, are pilot actions already being implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Only with experimental releases.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.1.5</td></tr><tr><td>62. Are monitoring programs regularly evaluated and adapted?</td><td>No</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 5.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 5.3.1</td></tr><tr><td>63. Is monitoring coordinated with other countries for shared populations?</td><td>Partly</td><td>For experiments and for bycatch monitoring, coordination exists with France, Germany and UK. Population monitoring is not feasible yet.</td></tr><tr><td>64. Is an (data) exchange on monitoring results in place? Where? With which countries?</td><td>Partly/planned</td><td>Possible sources: Interreg 2022-2026, LIFE, LNV, NPL, National fund, Postcode lottery.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 6 - ELIMINATE ILLEGAL TRADE OF ALL STURGEON PRODUCTS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 6.1 - Increased enforcement stronger prosecution achieved</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>65. Are forensic tools (genetic and isotope analysis) for identification of origin and species of sturgeon products in trade accessible and applied?</td><td>Not used / accessible</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>66. Do you perform regular market and trade controls on domestic level?</td><td>Yes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">67. At what level are controls performed?</td><td>X Verify proper CITES documentation</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>X Verify CITES labelling and documentation</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Test samples for compliance (origin and species)</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.1.3</td></tr><tr><td>68. How do you assess the quality of national inter-agency cooperation regarding enforcement of trade regulations?</td><td>Limited</td><td>Only one answer concerning this question.</td></tr><tr><td>69. How do you rate the specific capacity building for enforcement agencies?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.1.4</td></tr><tr><td>70. Have you identified issues with labelling compliance in your country?</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>71. Caviar labelling on the domestic market is</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.1.5</td></tr><tr><td>72. The level of sanctions for illegal trade are considered</td><td>Sufficiently deterrent</td><td>Only one answer concerning this question.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 6.2 - Higher awareness of all stakeholders in the caviar trade chain is achieved</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 6.2.1 / 6.2.2 / 6.2.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">73. Is the awareness of the following sectors high enough:</td></tr><tr><td>Enforcement authorities</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Judiciary</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sturgeon Producers / Traders</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Consumers</td><td>No information available</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 7 - SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING AND REGULATIONS TO ENABLE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 7.1 - Adequate funding instruments for long-term actions are in place</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 7.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>74. Is there a coordinated funding plan for the main measures of this action plan, utilizing existing EU funding, national governments or other donors?</td><td>Funding plan under development / discussion</td><td>Funding must be secured from various sources and continuously.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 7.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>75. Do you consider nationally available EU or other funding sources to provide appropriate funding for sturgeon related measures?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Possible sources: Interreg 2022-2026, LIFE, LNV, NPL, National fund, Postcode lottery.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 7.2 - Legal prerequisites support sturgeon conservation measures</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 7.2.3</td></tr><tr><td>76. Has the conservation of sturgeon habitats and migration routes been adequately considered in navigation plans and projects?</td><td>Under discussion / in progress</td><td>As the species is extinct it is difficult to consider it explicitly in plans and projects.</td></tr><tr><td>77. Have sturgeons been included into the national pledges under the EU Biodiversity Strategy?</td><td>No</td><td>The Netherlands have not submitted the pledges (status Oct 2023).</td></tr><tr><td>78. Do the River Management Plans of your country make reference to sturgeon conservation?</td><td>In progress</td><td>As the species is extinct it is difficult to consider it explicitly in plans and projects.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>Rating</th><th>Explanation / Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>79. Which policy instruments / which legal prerequisites are missing on country level for effective sturgeon conservation?</td><td>In the Netherlands, as the species is extinct for more than 10 years, it is not the responsibility of the government to reintroduce it. The current legislation does not encourage recovery plans of species that extirpated from the Rhine when they are still present elsewhere. Translocations are supported if they increase the Rhine biodiversity and benefit of new habitats. Due to the status of the species it is not considered in management plans.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 8 - STURGEONS SERVE AS FLAGSHIP SPECIES FOR HEALTHY RIVER ECOSYSTEMS. SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC, POLITICAL ACTORS, AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES HAS INCREASED</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 8.1 - Awareness for sturgeons and the urgency of conservation measure is increased</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 8.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>80. Is the awareness of main stakeholders and authorities considered high enough?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Commercial fishermen should be more aware to comply with conservation efforts, politicians and administration need to be more involved also to incorporate sturgeons in future planning.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 8.2 - International exchange between relevant stakeholders is increased</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 8.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>81. Is inter-agency / inter-sectoral cooperation facilitated for sturgeon conservation on a national level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Regular meetings with authorities and Stakeholders.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 8.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>82. Is there an active participation of your country in international expert exchange? (Examples: Helcom, Bern Convention, OSPAR; etc.)</td><td>Partly / Irregular</td><td>The Ministry hires experts to attend.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">OBJECTIVE 9 - MONITOR AND EVALUATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">RESULT 9.1 - Responsibilities for AP implementation clarified and regular monitoring and evaluation conducted</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">ACTION 9.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>83. Has your government appointed a focal point/coordinator responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>The LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) as a ministry and Menno de RIDDER as a person.</td></tr><tr><td>84. Does the focal point have a mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes, to coordinate administrative official activities and harmonization between ministries, but not with actions of NGOs.</td></tr><tr><td>85. Is there any reporting or evaluation mechanism of the national sturgeon AP or the PANEUAP implementation on national level?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Organized by ARK. But it should officially be a task of the ministry. An official evaluation is planned in 2030.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Annex 2 Regional assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons
Assessment of the implementation of the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons in the Atlantic Region (2024)

<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>GENERAL QUESTIONS</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1. Respondents</td><td>Royal Dutch Angling Alliance;<br>Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality;<br>Ark Nature.</td><td>Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,<br>Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV);<br>Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries<br>(IGB);<br>Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN); Federal<br>Institute of Hydrology.</td><td>Ministry of Environment, Regional Direction New Aquitaine;<br>MIGADO (NGO, Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne Charente<br>Seudre);<br>French Biodiversity Office;<br>Bordeaux Seaport;<br>Adour-Garonne Water Agency;<br>French National Committee for Marine Fisheries and Sea<br>Farming (CNPMEM).</td></tr><tr><td>2. List the STURGEON SPECIES (Latin names) that have been present in your country</td><td>Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio),<br>Historic: Atlantic/Baltic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)<br>A. sturio was reproducing in the Rhine system until recently.<br>Historic distribution of A. oxyrinchus is known from<br>excavations and coastal catches.</td><td>Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio);</td><td>Current: European/Common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio);<br>Historic: Atlantic/Baltic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)</td></tr><tr><td>3. Which RIVER BASINS are relevant for implementation of actions under the PANEUAP?</td><td>The Rhine, the Ijsel, the Meuse and the Scheldt.<br>All 4 rivers had sturgeon catches and historically were<br>inhabited by sturgeon; current work focuses on the Rhine.</td><td>Elbe and Rhine (potentially Ems, Weser, Eider).</td><td>Garonne basin (Garonne, Dordogne, Gironde); Rhine basin.<br>The Rhine basin is not covered in the French National Action<br>Plan.</td></tr><tr><td>4. Which SEA BASINS are relevant for PANEUAP action implementation?</td><td>North Sea (including Wadden Sea). Wadden Sea is the<br>coastal area of the North Sea in the South and East.</td><td>North Sea</td><td>Atlantic Ocean (East), English Channel and North Sea.</td></tr><tr><td>5.a. Is there a National Action Plan or National Strategy for sturgeons in place in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>5.b. If there is a national plan or strategy, what year was it produced/renewed?</td><td>2020</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>6. Is this national plan or strategy aligned with the PANEUAP?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>7.a. If this national plan or strategy is aligned with the PANEUAP, how?</td><td>The national AP mirrors both, the "Action Plan for the<br>European Sturgeon" (2007) and the PANEUAP (2018)</td><td>The national AP is based on the "Action Plan for the<br>European Sturgeon" (2007)</td><td>The national AP contributed to the development of the<br>PANEUAP and aims to implement it.</td></tr><tr><td>7.b. If this national plan or strategy is not aligned with the PANEUAP, are there plans to develop an aligned document?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td>8. Who has been designated as focal point of the Bern Convention (BC) in your country?</td><td>Menno de RIDDER from the LNV (Ministry of Agriculture,<br>Nature and Food Quality)</td><td>Germany has not appointed a national sturgeon focal point.</td><td>Dr Gilles ADAM, Ministry of Environment, Regional Direction<br>New Aquitaine. Due to the location of most actions in the<br>New Aquitaine region, the ministry delegated this<br>responsibility of the French Action Plan to its regional</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 1 - REMAINING WILD POPULATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL AND DIRECTED REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUALS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 1.1 - Directed removal of individuals is eliminated</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9. Is fishing / angling of sturgeons prohibited or regulated in your country?</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td><td>Fishing prohibited (unlimited)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>10. Is there a clear procedure in place for providing catch allowances (for scientific purposes) and monitoring them?</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td><td>Procedure is in place and responsible authority designated</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.1.2 / 1.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>11. Are the existing fishing regulations sufficiently enforced?</td><td>Enforcement partly working</td><td>Enforcement lacking</td><td>Enforcement in place and working</td></tr><tr><td>12. Is Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing (of sturgeons) an issue in your country?</td><td>Can be neglected</td><td>IUU is an issue</td><td>IUU is under sufficient control</td></tr><tr><td>13. Are seizures and cases of IUU recorded?</td><td>Seizures not recorded</td><td>Seizures partly recorded</td><td>Seizures partly recorded</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>14. Do you consider the resources and the capacity building opportunities for enforcement authorities overall adequate?</td><td>Resources and capacities for the enforcement are partly in place</td><td>There is a distinct lack of resources and capacities</td><td>Resources and capacities for the enforcement are partly in place</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>15. Is the involvement of fishers / anglers / communities in the planning and implementation of conservation actions a practice in your country?</td><td>Practice established</td><td>Practice partially in place</td><td>Practice established</td></tr><tr><td>16.a. Are affected fishing communities in need of alternative incomes?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>16.b. Are there initiatives to develop alternative income sources for affected communities?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Yes (it is an ongoing practice)</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 1.2 - Accidental removal is reduced to levels allowing population recovery</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>17. Is (marine / freshwater) by-catch considered an issue in your country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>18. Is (marine / freshwater) by-catch of sturgeons recorded in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>19. Are there management measures in place to avoid by-catch?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>20. Is compliance with these measures monitored?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 1.3 - Level of accidental losses of individuals by ship strikes, hydropower and water abstraction facilities is assessed and reduced</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.3.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>21. Is the information on accidental losses collected and utilized for mitigation?</td><td>No</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 1.3.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>22. Are the following losses being addressed by mitigation measures?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SHIP STRIKES</td><td>No</td><td>Partly</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>HYDROPOWER</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>WATER ABSTRACTION FACILITIES</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 1.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td>23.a. Is cross-border cooperation institutionalized regarding coherent fisheries regulations to reduce by-catch or against IUU?</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td>23.b. Is cooperation happening at country level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>No</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>23.c. Is cooperation institutionalized at country level?</td><td>No</td><td>Partly</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 2 - POPULATION STRUCTURE IS ACTIVELY SUPPORTED TO REVERSE THE DECLINE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>24. Is a release program considered necessary?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>25. Are ex-situ measures considered necessary in the country?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 2.1 - Ex-situ brood stocks are established to secure genetic diversity of all sturgeon populations</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.1</strong><br>26. Are there ex-situ programs following best practice guidelines for husbandry (such as IUCN 2013, FAO 570)?</td><td>Not existing</td><td>In place</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.2</strong><br>27. Funding for the construction and operation of ex-situ facilities is secured for?</td><td>Not secured</td><td>1-5 years</td><td>1-5 years</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.3</strong><br>28. A national or jointly managed ex-situ programme is:</td><td>Not existing</td><td>In place</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.4</strong><br>29. Are there established ex-situ stocks of all (sub-) populations, which are locally critically endangered, using animals genetically certified for species purity and degree of relatedness?</td><td>Not existing</td><td>In place</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.5</strong><br>30. Are there regular quality controls of husbandry practice being performed?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>In place</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.1.6</strong><br>31. Are there established long-term breeding plans to preserve all available genetic diversity?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>In place</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 2.2 - Reproduction and release programs are in place and being implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.1</strong><br>32. Is the ongoing reproduction and rearing of juveniles following best practice guidelines (such as FAO 570)?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Partly</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.2</strong><br>33. Are releases taking place from these programs?</td><td>Occasionally</td><td>Occasionally</td><td>Regularly</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.3</strong><br>34. Is there monitoring of these releases to control the success rate?</td><td>Partially</td><td>Partially</td><td>In place</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.2.4</strong><br>35.a. Are releases of exotic species and genotypes prohibited?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>35.b. If 'yes', by which means?</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td><td>Adequate jurisdiction on releases</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 2.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ACTION 2.3.1</strong><br>36. Is cooperation on breeding and release actions in place with neighbouring countries?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 3 - STURGEON HABITATS ARE PROTECTED AND RESTORED IN KEY RIVERS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 3.1 - Existing habitats are identified and protected from deterioration</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>37.a. Have the habitats of sturgeon species been identified in your country?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>37.b. Where are they located?</td><td>In freshwater, in the delta and at sea.</td><td>Habitat assessments have been carried out in the river catchments relevant for restoration (mainly Elbe, partly Rhine through the identification of potential spawning grounds and of juvenile feeding habitats through telemetry). Estuarine habitats and marine habitats have also been identified through telemetry and bycatch recording.</td><td>Through various works, potential spawning grounds in Garonne and Dordogne have been located and are monitored. In the Gironde estuary habitats used by the various age classes are verified. At sea, information depends only on by-catch and modelling. There is an information gap on the characteristics of the freshwater habitats used by juveniles.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>38.a. To which extent have the identified habitats received legal protection?</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>Some</td></tr><tr><td>38.b. Where are the protected areas located?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>39.a. Is there a clear understanding of which habitats might be threatened by economic developments?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td>39.b. Where are they located?</td><td>Mainly in the delta</td><td>Freshwater/Estuaries</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>40. Are such conflicts / threats being addressed by responsible authorities?</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Partly</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 3.2 - Habitats restored in key rivers</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.2.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>41. Have habitat restoration possibilities been identified?</td><td>Partly / In progress</td><td>Partly / In progress</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.2.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>42. Is there a habitat restoration plan / strategy with sturgeon as target?</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>43. Pilot restoration actions:</td><td>Are being planned or in progress</td><td>Not been implemented</td><td>Not been implemented</td></tr><tr><td>44.a. What type of restoration action?</td><td>Migration facilitation</td><td>Migration facilitation</td><td>Migration facilitation</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Restoration of spawning sites</td><td>Restoration of spawning sites</td><td>Restoration of spawning sites</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Restoration of feeding sites</td><td>Restoration of feeding sites</td><td>Restoration of feeding sites</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Other</td><td>Other</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>44.b. Where have they been implemented / planned?</td><td>Between Ijselmeer and Wadden Sea in the North and between Haringvliet and the North Sea in the South.</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.2.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>45. Has monitoring of habitat quality post restoration been implemented?</td><td>Ongoing / Planned</td><td>Not implemented</td><td>Not implemented</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 3.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 3.4.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>46. Is there a need for cross border cooperation on habitat protection and restoration?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">OBJECTIVE 4 - STURGEON MIGRATION (UP- AND DOWNSTREAM) IS SECURED OR FACILITATED</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">RESULT 4.1 - No further migration obstacles are built in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>47.a. Are there plans for building new migration obstacles in key sturgeon rivers?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Possible but undecided</td></tr><tr><td>47.b. If 'yes', are there mitigation measures planned?</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.1.2</td></tr><tr><td>48. Are there legal prerequisites established for future in-river construction development including suitable conditions for sturgeon migration?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>49. Is a minimum bypass of 30% of the discharge at all times established?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">RESULT 4.2 - Migration restored in key sturgeon rivers</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>50. Has the identification of relevant obstacles on migration routes been achieved?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Achieved</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>51. Has the mitigation of migration obstacles (according to criteria such as: existing stocks, former habitat, existing or former spawning sites, river length, existing habitat, and recolonization potential) been prioritized?</td><td>In progress</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Achieved</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.3</td></tr><tr><td>52. Have feasibility studies for facilitating up- and downstream migration at highest priority barriers been conducted?</td><td>In progress</td><td>In progress</td><td>No need at present</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.4</td></tr><tr><td>53. Have funds been allocated for feasibility studies as well as mitigation measures?</td><td>In progress</td><td>In progress</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.5</td></tr><tr><td>54. Mitigation measures such as sediment and flow management are established as an integral part of the concession for new or reiterated riparian water rights (mitigation measures to be included into rentability analysis of hydropower developments)?</td><td>No information available</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.6</td></tr><tr><td>55. Have functional passage solutions for sturgeons been implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>In progress</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 4.2.7</td></tr><tr><td>56. Are there any monitoring programs to assess sturgeon passage efficiency?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 4.4 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 4.4.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>57. Are there any cross-border migration obstacles?</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 5 - TIMELY AND CONTINUOUS DETECTION OF POPULATION SIZES AND CHANGES IN REMAINING WILD STOCKS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 5.1 - Monitoring programs are designed and implemented</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>58. Is there a competent authority in place (on a national or catchment basis) to establish population monitoring?</td><td>Authority in place</td><td>No</td><td>Authority in place</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>59. Is there a monitoring programme designed for sturgeon population(s)?</td><td>No</td><td>Achieved</td><td>Achieved</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>60. Is funding for long-term monitoring secured?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>In progress</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>61. If there is no regular monitoring as yet, are pilot actions already being implemented?</td><td>In progress</td><td>In progress</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>62. Are monitoring programs regularly evaluated and adapted?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Only partially</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 5.3 - Regional coherence of measures is secured</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 5.3.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>63. Is monitoring coordinated with other countries for shared populations?</td><td>Partly</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>64. Is an (data) exchange on monitoring results in place? Where? With which countries?</td><td>Partly/planned</td><td>Partly/planned</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 6 - ELIMINATE ILLEGAL TRADE OF ALL STURGEON PRODUCTS</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 6.1 - Increased enforcement stronger prosecution achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>65. Are forensic tools (genetic and isotope analysis) for identification of origin and species of sturgeon products in trade accessible and applied?</td><td>Not used / accessible</td><td>Yes</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>66. Do you perform regular market and trade controls on domestic level?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Irregularly / Partly</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.1.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>68. How do you assess the quality of national inter-agency cooperation regarding enforcement of trade regulations?</td><td>Limited</td><td>Insufficient</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>69. How do you rate the specific capacity building for enforcement agencies?</td><td>No information available</td><td>Insufficient</td><td>No information available</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.1.4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>70. Have you identified issues with labelling compliance in your country?</td><td>No information available</td><td>Yes</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>71. Caviar labelling on the domestic market is:</td><td>No information available</td><td>In place</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.1.5</strong></td></tr><tr><td>72. The level of sanctions for illegal trade are considered</td><td>Sufficiently deterrent</td><td>Medium</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 6.2 - Higher awareness of all stakeholders in the caviar trade chain is achieved</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 6.2.1 / 6.2.2 / 6.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>73. Is the awareness of the following sectors high enough:<br>Enforcement authorities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Enforcement authorities</td><td>No information available</td><td>Medium</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Judiciary</td><td>No information available</td><td>Yes</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sturgeon Producers / Traders</td><td>No information available</td><td>Yes</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consumers</td><td>No information available</td><td>Medium</td><td>No information available</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 7 - SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING AND REGULATIONS TO ENABLE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 7.1 - Adequate funding instruments for long-term actions are in place</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 7.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>74. Is there a coordinated funding plan for the main measures of this action plan, utilizing existing EU funding, national governments or other donors?</td><td>Funding plan under development / discussion</td><td>Not done yet</td><td>Funding plan in place</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 7.1.2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>75. Do you consider nationally available EU or other funding sources to provide appropriate funding for sturgeon related measures?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 7.2 - Legal prerequisites support sturgeon conservation measures</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 7.2.3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>76. Has the conservation of sturgeon habitats and migration routes been adequately considered in navigation plans and projects?</td><td>Under discussion / in progress</td><td>No</td><td>Under discussion / in progress</td></tr><tr><td>77. Have sturgeons been included into the national pledges under the EU Biodiversity Strategy?</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>78. Do the River Management Plans of your country make reference to sturgeon conservation?</td><td>In progress</td><td>No</td><td>Achieved</td></tr><tr><td>79. Which policy instruments / which legal prerequisites are missing on country level for effective sturgeon conservation?</td><td>In the Netherlands, as the species is extinct for more than 10 years, it is not the responsibility of the government to reintroduce it. The current legislation does not encourage recovery plans of species that extirpated from the Rhine when they are still present elsewhere. Translocations are supported if they increase the Rhine biodiversity and benefit of new habitats. Due to the status of the species it is not considered in management plans.</td><td>Prioritization of conservation targets, intersectoral collaboration, effective collaboration between different administrations (nature protection, navigation, fisheries, spatial planning) on both the Federal and the regional level, effective implementation of the AP including designation of Focal Point as coordinator.</td><td>Legal tools to manage ornamental fish trade. We noticed exotic species in the wild, some from fish farm escapements, but also some released by private individuals who had bought them from pet shops.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>OBJECTIVE 8 - STURGEONS SERVE AS FLAGSHIP SPECIES FOR HEALTHY RIVER ECOSYSTEMS. SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC, POLITICAL ACTORS, AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES HAS INCREASED</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>RESULT 8.1 - Awareness for sturgeons and the urgency of conservation measure is increased</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ACTION 8.1.1</strong></td></tr><tr><td>80. Is the awareness of main stakeholders and authorities considered high enough?</td><td>Yes</td><td>Medium</td><td>Medium</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Question</th><th>The Netherlands</th><th>Germany - North Sea</th><th>France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">RESULT 8.2 - International exchange between relevant stakeholders is increased</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 8.2.1</td></tr><tr><td>81. Is inter-agency / inter-sectoral cooperation facilitated for sturgeon conservation on a national level?</td><td>Partly</td><td>Partly</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 8.2.2</td></tr><tr><td>82. Is there an active participation of your country in international expert exchange? (Examples: Helcom, Bern Convention, OSPAR; etc.)</td><td>Partly / Irregular</td><td>Participates actively</td><td>Participates actively</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">OBJECTIVE 9 - MONITOR AND EVALUATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">RESULT 9.1 - Responsibilities for AP implementation clarified and regular monitoring and evaluation conducted</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">ACTION 9.1.1</td></tr><tr><td>83. Has your government appointed a focal point/coordinator responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Achieved</td><td>No</td><td>Achieved</td></tr><tr><td>84. Does the focal point have a mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Action Plan?</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>85. Is there any reporting or evaluation mechanism of the national sturgeon AP or the PANEUAP implementation on national level?</td><td>In progress</td><td>No</td><td>In progress</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Getting in touch with the EU

### In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

### On the phone or in writing

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696,

- via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.

## Finding information about the EU

### Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (european-union.europa.eu).

### EU publications

You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

### EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu).

### EU open data

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Publications Office
of the European Union