Table of contents 1.Introduction Purpose and scope 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1. Description of the current situation 3.2. Eel Management Plans and exemptions 3.3. Measures contained in the EMPs 3.4. Reporting by Member States and the Commission Reporting on EMP implementation Progress reports - 2012 2014 Commission report Progress reports - 2015 Progress reports - 2018 Good practices in eel conservation Reporting on the evolution of market prices for eels < 12 cm 3.5. Overall state-of-play of the implementation of the Eel Regulation

4.Method 4.1. Methodology and data collection 4.2. Consultation strategy 4.3. Timing and robustness of the evaluation 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1. Evaluation Questions Matrix 5.2. Analysis and answers 5.2.1. RELEVANCE 5.2.2. EFFECTIVENESS 5.2.3. SUSTAINABILITY 5.2.4. EFFICIENCY 5.2.5. COHERENCE 5.2.6. EU ADDED VALUE 6.Conclusions Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: Commission decisions under the Eel Regulation Annex 5: EMP Implementation Annex 6: European eel status and impacts on the stock

Annex 7 Summary of the EU and international linkages applicable to European eel Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition B0 Pristine biomass The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock Bbest The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the current stock, hence only natural mortality operating on stock, i.e. excluding restocking practices Bcurrent Current biomass The amount of silver eel biomass that currently escapes to the sea to spawn CFP Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna CMS The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals DCF Data Collection Framework Diadromous fish Fish species that migrate between salt water and fresh water as part of their life cycle. Catadromous species like eels spend most of their lives in fresh water and then migrate to the sea to breed. Anadromous fish, including salmon, live in the sea and migrate to fresh water to breed. DG MARE European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commission European Commission Eel Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency EFF European Fisheries Fund (for the period 2007-2013) EIFAAC European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission Elver Young eel, in its first year following recruitment from the ocean. The elver stage is sometimes considered to exclude the glass eel stage, but not by everyone. To avoid confusion, pigmented 0+ cohort age eels are included in the glass eel term. EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (for the period 2014-2020) EMP(s) Eel Management Plan(s) EMU Eel Management Unit “Member States shall identify and define the individual river basins lying within their national territory that constitute natural habitats for the European eel (eel river basins) which may include maritime waters. If appropriate justification is provided, a Member State may designate the whole of its national territory or an existing regional administrative unit as one eel river basin. In defining eel river basins, Member States shall have the maximum possible regard for the administrative arrangements referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2000/60/EC [i.e. River Basin Districts of the Water Framework Directive].” EC No. 1100/2007. Escapement The amount of silver eel that leaves (escapes) a water body, after taking account of all natural and anthropogenic losses. EU European Union FAME Support Unit Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation Support Unit under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund GES Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Glass eel Young, unpigmented eel, recruiting from the sea into continental waters. Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eels consider the glass eel term to include all recruits of the 0+ cohort age. In some cases, however, also includes the early pigmented stages. ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES Stock Annex Stock-specific documentation of the assessment procedures used by ICES for European Eel (Anguilla anguilla), last updated September 2016 IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated MS(s) Member State(s) MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield under the CFP NDF Non-Detriment Finding The competent scientific authority has advised in writing that the capture or collection of the specimens in the wild or their export will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species. PC Public Consultation RBD River Basin District under WFD RBMP River Basin Management Plan under WFD SAC Special Area of Conservation SCIPs Specific Control and Inspection Programmes Sigma ƩA The sum of anthropogenic mortalities, i.e. sigma A = sigma F + sigma H. It refers to mortalities summed over the age groups in the stock. ΣAlim Limit anthropogenic mortality ΣAlim is set at ΣA=-ln(40%)=0.92, corresponding to the 40% biomass limit Sigma ƩF The fishing mortality rate, summed over the age groups in the stock Sigma ƩH Anthropogenic mortality rate outside the fishery, summed over the age groups in the stock Silver eel Migratory phase following the yellow eel phase. Eel in this phase are characterized by darkened back, silvery belly with a clearly contrasting black lateral line, enlarged eyes. Silver eel undertake downstream migration towards the sea, and subsequently westwards. This phase mainly occurs in the second half of calendar years, although some are observed throughout winter and following spring. SMEFF Sustainable Management of the External Fishing Fleets SPA Special Protection Area SRG Scientific Review Group Stocking/Restocking Stocking is the practice of adding fish to a waterbody from another source, to supplement existing populations or to create a population where none exists. Since eels cannot be artificially reproduced, stocking material is always wild caught. TAC Total Allowable Catch set under the Fishing Opportunities Regulations Translocation Removal of eels from one place (e.g. the coast of arrival) to another (e.g. river or lake) to increase local population numbers. VMS Vessel Monitoring System defined under the Control Regulation WFD Water Framework Directive WGEEL Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eels Yellow eel Life-stage resident in continental waters. Often defined as a sedentary phase, but migration within and between rivers, and to and from coastal waters occurs and therefore includes young pigmented eels (‘elvers’ and bootlace). Sometimes yellow eel is also called ‘brown eel’. COUNTRY CODES Country code Country name Country code Country name AT Austria IE Ireland BE Belgium IT Italy BG Bulgaria LT Lithuania CY Cyprus LU Luxembourg CZ Czechia / Czech Republic LV Latvia DE Germany MT Malta DK Denmark NL Netherlands EE Estonia PL Poland EL Greece PT Portugal ES Spain RO Romania FI Finland SE Sweden FR France SI Slovenia HR Croatia SK Slovakia HU Hungary UK United Kingdom 1.Introduction Purpose and scope The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the measures established for the protection and sustainable use of the stock of European eel under the Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Eel Regulation’), and the contribution of the Eel Management Plans to the achievement of the objectives of this regulation and to the recovery of the stock of European eel. The European Commission presented a first assessment of the implementation of the Eel Management Plans (EMPs) in 2014. The results of this assessment were however largely inconclusive due to the delays in the preparation and approval of the national EMPs and the delays in the implementation of non-fisheries related measures. During the December 2017 Council meeting, in the context of the negotiations of the Regulation for 2018 Fishing opportunities, the Commission and Member States (MSs) agreed to step up their efforts to protect the European eel stock that according to solid scientific advice remains in critical condition. It was agreed that the Commission would launch an external evaluation of the Eel Regulation to assess its effectiveness and its contribution to the recovery of the stock of European eel, with a view to its possible revision. This evaluation covers the entire period since the entry into force of the Eel Regulation in September 2007 (while the EMPs are being implemented since 2009) until the second quarter of 2019. It examines the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added-value and sustainability of the measures established under the Eel Regulation. The evaluation assesses biological aspects, the management, implementation and enforcement issues, including trade aspects, as well as the use of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and its predecessor the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the implementation of the Eel Regulation. It considers the EMPs and MSs reporting under the Regulation to assess if they have adequately addressed all mortality factors affecting the eel stock, with a special emphasis on the design and implementation of restocking measures and the management of glass eel fisheries. It also covers the enforcement and monitoring issues, both in marine and in inland waters. The evaluation also looks into the articulation and coherence between the Eel Regulation and other EU rules in place such as the Common Fisheries Policy, the fisheries control regulation and environmental legislation, in particular the Water Framework and Habitats Directives. It looks as well into the articulation and coherence with international instruments that cover eels, such as the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) recommendations, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Recognising the complex life cycle of the European eel and the variety of the pressures impacting the stock helps to understand the background for setting the intervention.

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) belongs to one single population. It is a long-lived species that has a complex lifecycle and spawns only once in the lifetime. It is a catadromous species, which means it spawns in the sea and grows and matures in inland waters (see Annex 6). Scientific data indicate the spawning area is in the Sargasso Sea (a region of the North Atlantic Ocean, outside EU waters), so the distribution of eels on their spawning migration extends all the way from northern Europe across the Atlantic Ocean and down to the Sargasso Sea. Following multi-decadal decline at an alarming rate of the European eel stock across Europe, in 1999 the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recommended that a recovery plan for European eel was urgently needed. This decline is attributed to multiple causes. The stock is facing numerous anthropogenic pressures, including fisheries and non-fisheries. Climate change may also have impacts. Fisheries take place in marine, transitional and freshwaters, although fishing pressure varies from area to area, from almost nil to heavy overexploitation. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and illegal trade are known to occur, as recognised by the scientific advice, Member States, civil societies and the EUROPOL among others. Other human activities than fishing affecting eel are (a) hydropower, pumping stations, and other water intakes; (b) habitat loss or degradation; (c) pollution, diseases, and parasites; and (d) other management actions that may affect levels of predation, e.g. conservation vs. control of predators. Therefore, the conservation and management of eels as a wide-ranging issue needed to take into account both fisheries and environmental considerations. In October 2003, the European Commission proposed the development of a Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel. In July 2004 the Council adopted conclusions in this regard and requested the Commission to come forward with proposals for long-term management of eels in Europe. Later in November 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation for the recovery of European eel stock. Based on the identified actions and targets for rebuilding eel stocks under the Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel and the scientific advice, in 2005 the Commission proposed a Regulation to put in place measures for the protection and recovery of the European eel stock, which was adopted by the Council in 2007 (Regulation No 1100/2007). This so called Eel Regulation entered into force in September 2007 and required MSs to establish EMPs for their river basins that constitute significant eel habitats for implementation in 2009. EMPs had to include (i) measures to ensure the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of adult eels relative to the escapement levels that would have existed in the absence of human influences, such as limiting (professional and recreational) fisheries; and (ii) making it easier for fish to migrate through the rivers; iii) restocking suitable waters with young eel. The Regulation refers to achieving its aim in ‘the long term’. The choice of the conservation measures to ensure eel survival remained with MSs as different choices would have different social and economic consequences which could not have been evaluated in a global fashion. In addition, MSs that permit the fishing of eels less than 12 cm in length (glass eels) were obliged to reserve 60% of their glass eel catches for restocking purposes. MSs that have not established EMPs are obliged to reduce their fishing effort/eel catches by at least 50% relative to the average from 2004 to 2006. Intervention Logic The schematic Intervention Logic for the development of the Eel Regulation is presented in Figure 1 below. It illustrates the hierarchy between the objectives, from inputs through activities to the ultimate desired impact of the Eel Regulation and its contribution to achieving the protection and sustainable use of the stock of European Eel in EU waters, reflecting the needs of the 2003 Community Action Plan. Figure 1. Schematic intervention logic of the Eel Regulation Baseline and points of comparison The European eel population has fallen by 90% since the 1960s/70. Scientific advices, before the Eel Regulation entered into force, indicated that the stock was highly depleted and outside safe biological limits, and in particular pointed out the following: ·the stock was at an historical minimum in most of the distribution area and continued to decline; the fishery was not sustainable; the anthropogenic factors (habitat loss, contamination, and transfer of diseases) have had negative effects on the stock; ·fishing mortality was thought to be high both on juvenile (glass eel) and older eel (yellow and silver eel); ·recruitment to the stock was at a historically low level (1-5% of the pre-1980 level) and most recent observations did not indicate recovery; ·estimated total yield has declined to about half that of the mid-1960s. Prior the Eel Regulation, many MSs have implemented a wide range of measures concerning eel management such as minimum landing sizes, closed seasons and areas, licensing of eel fishermen, regulations concerning construction of dams and eel passes. Restocking has been practised by some countries for decades, but this has generally been to maintain fisheries rather than improve the stock or recruitment. The EU Habitats Directive was established in 1992 and the Water Framework Directive was established in 2000, inter alia, to protect, conserve and enhance the environment where the eel spends the largest part of its life cycle. The Eel Regulation introduced a common target for all MSs in order that measures to restore eel population are equitable. The Community approach was needed that MSs could each implement a balanced and adequate contribution to the eel management. The Regulation specifically refers to achieving the 40% biomass target in ‘the long term’ but provides no explicit timeline. It also established an obligation for MSs to report to the Commission on the monitoring, effectiveness and outcomes of their EMPs every third year until 2018 and subsequently every six years.

If no action was taken to improve the survival of adult silver eels, a very low abundance of glass eel would result in a decline in the abundance of yellow eel in rivers and at the end the abundance of emigrating silver eel would also decline. Further decline could mean that the European eel stock could no longer exist as a significant exploitable aquatic resource, and the associated jobs and markets could be lost. Failure to act could also accelerate a biodiversity loss and result in a disappearance of the specie. Other points of comparison relevant for the evaluation of the Eel Regulation The below described facts underlined the need for policy response. Considering dire state of the stock, in September 2008 European eel was listed in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as a critically endangered species. Next category is extinction of the specie. European eel was also listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 2007 (the listing came into force in 2009), which concerns species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled in order to avoid utilisation that is incompatible with their survival. This is reflected through listing since 13 March 2009 in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora, which implements the CITES in the EU. The EU Scientific Review Group (SRG) established under the Regulation No 338/97, which gathers all scientific authorities of the EU MSs, at a meeting in December 2010 came to the conclusion that "it was not possible for the SRG to consider that the capture or collection of European eel specimens in the wild or their export will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species". On that basis and recurrent annual assessment by the SRG, the EU MSs have not been in a position to allow export from or import to into the EU of the European eel. In 2014, European eel was also included in the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) List of the Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. The same year, European eel was added to Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), whereby Parties (covering almost the entire distribution of European eel) to the Convention call for cooperative conservation actions to be developed among Range States. 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1.Description of the current situation According to the scientific advice, the status of the European eel stock remains critical and the glass eel recruitment remains at low levels at all times. The annual recruitment of glass eel to European waters in 2018 was 2.1% of the 1960–1979 level in the ‘North Sea’ series and 10.1% in the “Elsewhere Europe” series. The annual recruitment of young yellow eel to European waters in 2018 was 29% of the 1960–1979 levels. MSs’ progress in implementing their EMPs and associated measures for the recovery of eel stock is presented below. 3.2.Eel Management Plans and exemptions Pursuant to Article 2 of the Eel Regulation, MSs are required to establish the EMPs for their river basins that constitute natural habitats for the European eel, for adoption by the Commission on a basis of the technical and scientific assessment. Each EMP constitute a management plan adopted at national level within the framework of the EU conservation measure. 19 MSs have developed and implemented national EMPs: BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, ES, SE, UK. Some MSs have prepared multiple EMPs to cover individual Eel Management Units (EMU), which typically relate to River Basin Districts as defined under the Water Framework Directive, resulting in the preparation of over 60 EMPs. One EMP has been developed at cross-border level under Article 6 of the Regulation (the ES / PT Transboundary Plan for Minho River). In the majority of MSs, EMPs have remained static documents, rather than being used to encourage adaptive management based on the findings of the latest monitoring and research. Only one EMP has been amended so far (by NL). The Commission has approved all EMPs and their amendments based upon an assessment by ICES. The EMPs cover almost 90 Eel Management Units and around 1,880 actions. The management measures vary from one EMU to the other and not all measures are implemented in all EMUs. In many cases, multiple parties have been involved in the development and implementation of EMPs (national authorities and state agencies for fisheries, environment, control, structural funds, as well as academic advisors). This broad involvement reflects the wide geographical coverage, the need to consider both marine and freshwater environments, and the broad scope of proposed management measures. Five MSs (CY, MT, AT, RO, SK) were exempted from preparing EMPs in 2009, pursuant to Article 3 of the Eel Regulation, as their river basins or maritime waters concerned cannot be identified and defined as constituting natural habitats for the European eel. In accordance with Article 1(2) of the Eel Regulation and based on scientific evidence, the Black Sea and the river systems connected to the Black Sea have been assessed as not constituting a natural habitat for European eel for the purpose of the Regulation. Hence, MSs with river basins flowing only into the Black Sea (HU, RO) were exempted from preparing the EMPs. SI, HR, as well as BG (for river systems outside the Black Sea) are not formally exempted but have decided not to submit EMPs as they consider eel catches (outside the Black Sea in the case of BG) to be minimal. Those MSs operating a fishery that catches European eel, who have not submitted EMP to the Commission for approval and have not been exempted, are subject to a 50% reduction of fishing effort or a 50% reduction in eel catch relative to the average from 2004 to 2006, according to Articles 4(2) and 8 of the Regulation. A list of relevant Commission decisions is provided in Annex 4 to this SWD. 3.3.Measures contained in the EMPs The implementation of the Eel Regulation has suffered significant delays. EMPs were submitted late by MSs (ranging from several months to almost two years after the deadline), technical evaluations took unexpectedly long, reports had to be re-submitted for approval by the Commission, and the implementation of the majority of plans were correspondingly delayed. The main categories of the measures contained in the EMPs submitted by the MSs include the following:

Commercial fishing: a variety of measures to reduce the impact of commercial fishing on the eel stock typically focused on reducing fishing effort (ranging from prohibition of certain gears in specific areas to total bans on commercial eel fisheries) and introducing or extending closed seasons. Measures are also aimed at improving fishery monitoring systems (e.g. implementing national catch registers). Recreational fishing: the measures to reduce the impact of recreational fishing on the eel include bans on targeting or capturing eel, closed seasons, introduction of quota, increase in minimal size limit, and development of systems to report catches. Hydropower and other connectivity obstacles: within some EMPs, measures aiming to mitigate against the effects of physical obstacles to migration in water courses are focused on removal of barriers, or the installation of eel pass structures. In some cases, they involve trapping of silver eels upstream of obstacles and releasing them downstream of the obstacle. Habitat improvement: management measures relating to habitat improvement, often described in unspecific and vague terms, include increasing habitat connectivity, improving water quality, and establishing protected areas. Restocking is a management measure that features in the majority of EMPs. Other: other management measures listed in EMPs tend to consider enhancement of fisheries management frameworks (e.g. setting up fisheries reporting systems and improvement of fisheries control) or monitoring and research programmes (e.g. expanding catchment fish surveys and progressing research on fish health and development of models to assess stock indicators), rather than strictly looking at addressing anthropogenic impacts. In some cases, measures also target predator control, focused particularly on the control of cormorant populations. Each MS applies management measures to reach specific common targets established under the Eel Regulation in order that measures to restore eel population are equitable. These targets are described below. The 40% escapement target In line with the requirements of the Eel Regulation (in particular Article 2 thereof), all EMPs should aim to achieve in the long-term an escapement of silver eel to the spawning population that equals or exceeds a target set at 40% of the potential biomass that would be produced under conditions with no anthropogenic disturbance. There is no timeline for achieving this objective, nor are any interim targets established. Whilst all EMPs share this common target, the approach to the achievement of that target varies across MSs. The 60 % restocking target In accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, MSs who permit fishing for eels less than 12 cm in length (glass eels), either as part of an EMP or as part of a reduction in fishing effort/catches, are obliged to reserve at least 60 % of those eels caught by the fisheries in that MS during each year to be marketed for use in restocking in eel river basins for the purpose of increasing the escapement levels of silver eels. This target was to be achieved by 31 July 2013 gradually by setting at least 35 % in the first year of EMP application and then increased by steps of at least 5 % per year. The 50% fishing reduction Pursuant to Articles 4(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of the Regulation, a MS, who has not submitted an EMP to the Commission and who has not been exempted from this, is obliged either to reduce fishing effort by at least 50 % or eel catches by at least 50 %, both relative to the average from 2004 to 2006. This reduction was to be achieved gradually from 1 July 2009, initially by steps of 15 % per year in the first two years over a 5-year period. 3.4.Reporting by Member States and the Commission Reporting on EMP implementation Under Article 9 of the Eel Regulation, MSs are required to report on the monitoring, effectiveness and outcomes of EMPs initially every three years and then after a third progress report every six years. Under the Joint Declaration on the recovery of European eels (December 2017), MSs agreed to continue providing progress reports on the implementation of their EMPs every three years, until there is a strong scientific evidence of recovery signs for the eel population across Europe. The required information includes:

·the proportion of silver eel biomass (relative to the target level of escapement) that escapes to the sea to spawn or leaves the national territory; ·the level of fishing effort that catches eel each year; ·the level(s) of anthropogenic mortality outside the fishery; ·the amount of eel less than 12 cm in length caught; and ·the proportions utilized for different purposes. The Commission has facilitated this reporting and the assessment by providing further guidance to MSs through explaining various definitions and preparing specific templates in Excel format, developed with ICES, to be used on a voluntary basis. Moreover, MSs are obliged to establish the appropriate reporting systems: ·to ensure that the respective percentages of eels less than 12 cm in length caught are used in a restocking programme (Article 7(3) of the Regulation); ·to monitor market prices for eels of less than 12 cm in length to be reported annually to the Commission (Article 7(5) of the Regulation). Progress reports - 2012 In 2012, MSs first reported on the actions taken under the EMPs, the reduction in anthropogenic mortalities achieved, and the state of their stock relative to their targets. ICES evaluated these progress reports in terms of the technical implementation of actions. The 2012 Progress Reports inform about a total of 1,362 individual management actions from the 81 Eel Management Units (EMU) established by MSs. The most commonly adopted categories of measures were those aimed at the control of commercial and/or recreational fisheries with slightly fewer measures addressing hydropower and obstacles to eel movements, and fewer still implementing habitat improvement or stocking measures (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Proportion of management measures by category [source: ICES (2014a)] About two-thirds of the planned measures under the EMPs relate to fisheries (commercial and recreational), improved passage at hydropower installations and other obstacles and habitat improvement in general. Many MS did not completely report stock indicators (22 of 81 EMPs did not report all biomass indicators, and 38 did not report all mortality indicators), and there were differences in the approaches used to calculate reported stock indicators. Analysis of 2012 Progress Reports showed mixed results. Out of 1,188 management actions documented, 1,140 had been planned in the original EMPs and the remaining 48 were new, additional measures. A total of 756 management actions (e.g. easement of barriers, restocking, restrictions on fishing) proposed in the EMPs had been implemented fully, 259 partially and 107 declared as not implemented at all. Information for the remaining 18 measures was missing. In terms of progress towards EMP targets, out of 81 EMUs, 17 EMUs were achieving their biomass targets, in 42 EMUs this was not the case, and there is no report for 22 EMUs. 24 EMUs reported on achieving their anthropogenic mortality targets, 19 reported not to have achieved these targets. Of 59 EMUs analysed, 29 reported a rise in silver eel escapement and 30 reported a decline. In most EMUs established by countries for the implementation of their EMPs, progress was made in implementing management measures related to fisheries, but other management measures, such as improving habitats, combatting parasites or predator control, have often been postponed or only partially implemented. The extent to which management measures as detailed in EMPs have been implemented is presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Implementation of management measures in EMPs, as reported in 2012 progress reports, summarised by category [Source: Reproduced from ICES, 2018d] 2014 Commission report In October 2014, the Commission reported to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of the EMP implementation, as well as on the measures concerning restocking and evolution of the market prices on glass eels. The results of this first assessment were largely inconclusive due to the delays in the preparation and approval of the national EMPs and the delays in the implementation of non-fisheries related measures. In general, it remained difficult to assess the outcome of EMPs against the 40% escapement target set by the Regulation. It was not yet possible to determine on an individual basis the contribution of EMUs to the recovery of the whole stock. Progress reports - 2015 MSs again reported on progress with implementing their EMPs in 2015. 14 out of 19 countries submitted national reports. However, the required information was not always complete, and the quality of the national data and assessment were difficult to evaluate. Progress reports - 2018 It needs to be noted that the 2018 reporting by MSs was again not complete. Of those countries with EMPs: LU and PT did not report at all; CZ, FI and IE provided a description but no data tables, and FR and PL did not provide all seven data tables. CZ, FI, EL, IE, LV, PL and ES reported after the deadline. The 2018 progress reports have been evaluated by ICES (for the biological part) and by the external study consultants (for other parts). Significant complexities were involved, for example as a result of the continued lack of standardisation in approaches taken by countries to modelling and calculation of stock indicators. An overview of the targets and management measures set out in EMPs and the extent to which they are known to have been implemented in each MS is presented in Annex 5. It includes a scope and availability of EMPs and Progress Reports (Annex 5.1), and MS progress in implementing their EMPs and achieving the escapement target (Annex 5.2). The analysis based on 2018 Progress Reports has found that: ·5 MSs report full or partial (i.e. within some but not all EMUs) achievement of the 40% escapement target, though in some cases there is significant uncertainty associated with escapement calculations. ·the remaining 14 MSs mostly report that the escapement target has not been achieved, and in some cases, there is insufficient data to judge whether the target has been achieved. Table 1. Achievement of the 40% escapement target by MSs Achievement of 40% escapement target Member State YES EE, IE (in all EMU but one) Partial/variable DE, ES, UK NO BE, DK, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE Not clear CZ, FI, FR, EL, PT Only in some cases, Progress Reports analyse the causes of failure to achieve the Eel Regulation main target (i.e. escapement). Causes mentioned are: ·need for higher levels of inter-agency cooperation at MS level to implement management measures, ·lack of/poor data on which to base management measures and monitor progress, ·concerns about the uncertainty around management measures influencing spawning and ultimately stock status (i.e. more fish does not necessarily equate to increased spawning), and ·lack of funding to implement management measures.

The EMP Progress Reports and Country Reports provided to the WGEEL in 2018 indicate that management measures set out in original EMPs have not changed significantly over time. Broadly, it appears that the focus has moved even further towards fishing restrictions and away from non-fisheries measures. The assessment of EMPs and Progress Reports shows that both comparative analyses of progress across the MSs, as well as a cumulative analysis for the entire EU, is currently not achievable. This is due to incomplete national datasets, uncertainty about the quality of national data and assessments and the differing approaches taken by MSs for measuring stock indicators. Good practices in eel conservation This evaluation finds that there have been a number of successes and examples of good practice as a direct result of the Eel Regulation. These practices may be a source of inspiration for other MSs for strengthening the implementation of their EMP and various activities. These good practices are described in more detail in Annex 5.3. In summary, most of these successes have been fisheries-focused. Many are bringing short-term gains e.g. reduction in fishing effort and output, but others maybe longer-term, e.g. bringing fundamental changes in MS and individual EMU management. However the main challenge is now to consolidate these successes and to address the longer-term, often non-fisheries related anthropogenic impacts on spawner escapement. Reporting on the evolution of market prices for eels < 12 cm Reporting requirements Pursuant to Articles 7(5) of the Eel Regulation, the Commission shall report annually to the Council on the evolution of market prices for eels of less than 12 cm in length. For this purpose, MSs are obliged to establish an appropriate system to monitor these prices and report on them annually. By 1 July 2011, the Commission was to report for the first time to the Council on the evaluation of the measures concerning restocking, including the evolution of market prices. The level and quality of glass eel price reporting is highly variable between MS and as a result, the Commission has been unable to fulfil this annual reporting requirement. According to the 2014 Commission assessment report, only 9 complete glass eel reports were received by July 2012. Since then, no national reports on glass eel prices have been submitted, although BE, DK, EE and the UK have provided some price data in their recent 2018 Annual Progress Reports. This represents a major failure in the Regulation’s monitoring requirement. As mentioned above, these prices are linked to the glass eel harvest strategy in terms of managing the proportion of eels <12 cm reserved for stocking. According to Article 7(6) of the Eel Regulation, when market prices of glass eel used for restocking suffer a significant decline compared to the price of glass eels used for other purposes, based on price information submitted by MSs, the Commission is required to take appropriate measures to address the situation. These measures may include a reduction in the percentage of glass eels to be reserved for restocking as set out in Article 7(2) of the Regulation. No such measures have been adopted. Glass eel production Reported glass eel production has increased from just under 40 tonnes per annum in 2011 to around 60 tonnes in 2018. FR remains the predominant glass eel producer and is the only country to set quotas (currently 64.75 tonnes, of which 38.75 tonnes are reserved for restocking). ES glass eel production over this period (minimum 1 ton in 2018 and maximum 16 tonnes in 2017) is mainly for local use in a small area of the Basque region, a traditional practice that is now being replaced with an artificial substitute. Figure 4: EU glass eel production (2011 - 2018), Source: Compiled from ICES (2018c) Evolution of market prices of eels less than 12 cm in length Based on the limited data available, the EU market prices of eels <12 cm that are predominantly used for restocking (besides some limited traditional direct consumption) remained fairly constant at around €470 / kg over the five year period 2009 – 2013 before collapsing to €128 in 2014 (presumably in response to the abovementioned spike in production that year) and recovering slowly to the 2018 average of €274 (see Figure 5). These figures conform with confidential tender prices provided to the consultant of the external study by glass eel traders over 2016 – 2018. Figure 5: Average prices for glass eels <12 cm (2009-2017) used for restocking, showing production (tonnes, 2011-2017) Source: Prices 2018 Country Progress Reports (BE, EE, FR & UK); production ICES 2018a 19 EU countries sold live eels over the last decades. This trade includes re-selling of glass eels from one country to another e.g. if eel is sold from ES to DE and afterwards is transported to PL for stocking, the eel sales would be double counted as sales from ES and sales from DE. A comparison between sales and buyer statistics reveals that potentially 50% of the total sales could be double counted in this way and that for several countries the percentage of re-sales could be as large as 100%. As most of the countries in the above graph do not produce any glass eel, presumably these prices are re-exports. Therefore the total sales values should be regarded with caution (Motova, 2014). Intra-EU trade in glass eel Focusing on the intra-EU trade in glass eels, the reported EU catch of glass eels is around 60 tonnes per annum (see Figure 5 above). In fishing season 2016/2017, 64 tonnes of glass eel catches were declared to national authorities in FR, ES, PT and UK and 59 tonnes in the season 2017/2018. The market for glass eels within the EU for aquaculture is around 15 – 20 tonnes and restocking is about 36 tonnes (60% of reported catches must be used for restocking). There may be an additional 10 tonnes for direct consumption in ES, so the total EU market is around 50 to 55 tonnes. Questions have been raised about the fate of the other 5-10 tonnes of glass eels.

It needs to be noted that at the lucrative Asian market the prices for glass eel can reach €1,500 – 2,500 per kg in Hong Kong. Much of this is on-grown in China, but some may be exported to Japan, also for aquaculture (MRAG, 2017; Sanada, 2018). 3.5.Overall state-of-play of the implementation of the Eel Regulation Substantial efforts have been made by MSs to develop and implement management measures for the recovery of the eel stock. About two-thirds of the planned measures under the EMPs relate to fisheries (commercial and recreational), improved passage at hydropower installations and other obstacles and habitat improvement in general. The implementation of measures varies in terms of progress and in terms of approach. The management measures vary by the EMU, i.e. not all measures are implemented in all EMUs. There are no major changes in management practices for eel throughout Europe in the recent years. Some countries have implemented measures according to their stated schedule whilst others have lagged behind. Despite a significant proportion of measures fully implemented, there is no evidence to suggest that these measures have enabled significant progress towards the escapement target. The silver eel escapement is still well below the 40% target. Some progress has been made in reducing fishing effort, but it has also risen in some MS. Catches of yellow and silver eels have declined. Glass eel catches are steadily increasing. There is also likely to be considerable un-observed and un-estimated eel mortality through IUU fishing in EU waters. Whilst restocking works in some countries, not all have achieved their 60% restocking targets. The reporting on the evolution of the market prices for eels < 12cm has been largely incomplete and on irregular basis. Reported glass eel production has increased from just under 40 tonnes per annum in 2011 to around 60 tonnes in 2018. FR remains the predominant glass eel producer and is the only country to set quotas. 4.Method 4.1.Methodology and data collection The evaluation is based on three pillars: 1)an evaluation study, carried out by an external consultancy, and which primarily looked into management, implementation and enforcement issues, including trade aspects; 2)the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recurrent advices on eels and the ad hoc assessment of the 2018 Member States’ progress reports for the biological part; and 3)Commission's analysis of the use of the EMFF and the EFF for the implementation of the Eel Regulation, tasked to the FAME Support Unit. The procedural information can be found in Annex 1. The external study was conducted between 21 September 2018 and 3 July 2019 over four main stages: inception phase, desk-based data collection, stakeholders consultations, and analysis and presentation. The study was supported by three country case studies to provide more detailed insight into the implementation of the Eel Regulation at national, regional and local levels. Three MSs included FR (top producer of wild caught glass eel, main EU MS restocking glass eels), DK (major producer of commercially and recreationally caught eels in the EU; a major aquaculture producer) and IT (eel exploitation still important despite a progressive and increased loss of interest, the intensive aquaculture strongly reduced today). The FAME reports and ICES advices were taken into account for the analysis under the external study. For this evaluation, data were collected using different methods: ·analysis of MSs EMPs and relevant progress reports; ·analysis of MSs reports on the use of the EMFF and the EFF; ·results of the questionnaires from the Commission on control of eel fisheries (2017-2018); ·feedback from MSs;

·targeted stakeholder consultations and public consultations; ·literature review, reports, scientific advice on eels (in particular annual ICES advice on the state of the eel stock and ad hoc advices requested); ·analysis of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) submitted under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and relevant evaluation reports of the second cycle RBMPs; ·findings of 2007-2012 Habitats Directive Article 17 reports on the conservation status of the most important Annex I habitat types for the European Eel; ·previous Commission assessment report: 2014 Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the outcome of the implementation of the Eel Management Plans, including an evaluation of the measures concerning restocking and of the evolution of market prices for eels less than 12 cm in length. The methods and tools for data collection and analysis were designed and refined such as the Evaluation Questions Matrix (see Annex 3.1). List of main literature consulted is included in Annex 3.3. 4.2.Consultation strategy The consultation was carried out to gather input from all relevant sources to evaluate the measures taken for the recovery of European eel stock under the Eel Regulation and their contribution to the achievement of the objectives of this regulation. The main objectives of the consultations were to: 1)obtain, analyse and integrate the views and experiences of those that are directly affected by the implementation of the Eel Regulation; 2)gather the views of citizens and a wider stakeholder community on the issues related to the implementation of the Eel Regulation; 3)identify the benefits and burdens generated by the implementation of this Regulation; 4)detect issues in the applicability and enforcement of these rules. The main consultation tools used were a public consultation (Commission-led) and targeted consultations with the assistance of an external consultancy within a supporting evaluation study. The consultation featured the following components: ·The online feedback to the Evaluation Roadmap open for 4 weeks from 13 April to 11 May 2018. ·A public consultation via the Commission's central public consultations page with a structured questionnaire (developed with support of the external study consultants) published online in all EU languages on 14 December 2018 for a period of 12 weeks and publicised on the Commission websites, networks and with national authorities. Separate written contributions were also received. ·Targeted consultations, both written (based on questionnaires) and oral in a limited number of EU languages of the MS public authorities, conducted by the external consultants. ·Targeted consultations of key stakeholders affected by the implementation of the Eel Regulation through bilateral interviews, complemented by additional phone interviews in some MSs, carried out by the external consultants.

·Targeted consultation of the relevant Advisory Councils, the main stakeholder bodies bringing together sectorial organisations and other interest groups affected by policy initiatives in the area of the eels management, carried out by the external consultants. The list of main stakeholders consulted is provided in Annex 3.2. Synopsis Report of the consultation is enclosed in Annex 2. 4.3.Timing and robustness of the evaluation The evaluation started in the first quarter (Q1) of 2018 and was planned to be completed in Q1 2019 to present the results of the evaluation and its conclusions to the Council in Q1 2019, as agreed under the Joint Declaration on strengthening the recovery for European eel (December 2017). The external study in support of this evaluation was finalised in July 2019. The data gathered from the analysis of the EMP progress reports, other reports and literature, the targeted and open consultations, all together, provide a solid body of evidence. The evaluation is considered to be robust and well informed. Key limitations The complex biology of the European eel and its long life cycle (from 10-20, up to 50 years) makes it difficult to observe significant signs of recovery of the eel when focusing on the past ten years of the EMPs being implemented. This factor impacted at this stage the analysis of the effectiveness of the Eel Regulation and the associated measures. The lack of data on costs in MSs made it impossible to provide a monetarised analysis of the cost-benefits of the Eel Regulation. Thus, the efficiency of the measures established under the Regulation could not be evaluated in depth. The lack of progress reports from some MSs, incomplete reports and national datasets, uncertainties on the quality of national data and assessments, and the differing approaches taken by MSs to measuring stock indicators, impeded both comparative analyses of progress across MSs, as well as a cumulative analysis for the entire EU. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Evaluation Questions Matrix The evaluation questions were drafted to provide answers to the six evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency, coherence and EU added value) and structured around the judgement criteria (JC) used to interpret each evaluation question (EQ). The analysis of the evaluation questions are based upon the Evaluation Questions Matrix that is provided in Annex 3.1. 5.2.Analysis and answers 5.2.1.RELEVANCE EQ1. To what extent are the existing measures for the recovery of European eel stock under the Eel Regulation still relevant? Escapement levels The analysis of the 2018 Progress Reports suggests that only two MSs achieved their escapement targets (EE, IE), three countries met them partially (DE, ES, UK), while other MSs who reported did not achieve this target or it is not clear. The results of the scientific assessment by ICES show that in 2017 the spawner (silver eel) escapement from the majority of EMUs was below the 40% target (ICES, 2018c). This confirms that the escapement levels are still well below the general objective of the Eel Regulation of at least 40% of the silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influence had impacted the stock.

Eel landings, aquaculture production and eel recruitment Fisheries impact local eel populations and spawner escapement in 15 out of 20 countries reporting to the WGEEL. In total, fisheries make up for more than 50% of anthropogenic mortality in 29 of 62 EMUs, where data for fishing and hydropower mortality was reported. Wild fisheries landings have declined to the current levels of around 2,500 tonnes since 2010 onwards where they are now broadly stable. According to ICES estimates, in 2017 the EU harvested around 2,300 tonnes of eels with FR, UK, DK and SE taking around two-thirds of the EU wild catch between them. In particular, recreational landings, mainly of yellow and silver eels are now around 161 tonnes, mostly from DK, but reporting is now limited. ES is the only country to have glass eel recreational landings. Aquaculture production of eels declined to approximately 5,000–6,000 tonnes now, mainly reflecting a reduced demand. It should be noted that eel aquaculture is based on wild recruits, and some of them are subsequently released as on-grown eel for stocking. Eel recruitment indices show a similar pattern, having strongly declined from 1980 to about 2010, and have remained at a low level since. The annual recruitment of glass eel to European waters in 2018 was 2.1% of the 1960–1979 level in the ‘North Sea’ series and 10.1% in the “Elsewhere Europe” series. The annual recruitment of young yellow eel to European waters in 2018 was 29% of the 1960–1979 level (ICES, 2018a). Annex 6 provides for more detailed information on the European eel status, landings, recruitment and aquaculture. This suggests that, in terms of landings and stock recruitment, whilst the situation is no longer declining, it is still critical. Concern has also been expressed around the effects on species status of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the illegal trade in glass eels (SEG, 2018, Crook, 2010). Mortality outside the fishery and river basin conditions A key source of eel mortality outside the fishery is the impact of hydroelectric turbines and dams on migration and escapement. As reported by ICES, the estimations of MS suggest that hydropower mortality accounts for more than 50% of anthropogenic mortality in 33 of 62 EMUs, where data for fishing and hydropower mortality was reported (ICES 2017b). The scientific data suggest that the anthropogenic mortality outside the fishery, whilst variable (can depend upon environmental conditions (flooding vs. drought) at the time of the down-stream migration), has not declined significantly over the past decade. See Annex 6 for more detailed information on the eel mortality outside the fishery, Overall The Eel Regulation provides an avenue for addressing both the fisheries and non-fisheries-related mortality in marine and fresh waters. As the recovery of the European eel is a long-term process that will take decades rather than years to progress, in terms of stock recovery – both from direct fishing as well as from other anthropogenic source of mortality, the objectives of the Eel Regulation are still highly relevant. This was confirmed in the Public Consultation, where more than nine in ten respondents agreed that there remains a need to ensure that anthropogenic mortalities are reduced, for a European recovery plan for the European eel and for MSs to implement EMPs. 5.2.2.EFFECTIVENESS EQ2. To what extent have the current measures for the recovery of European eel stock under the Eel Regulation met its objectives? This section is structured around the objectives as set out in the intervention logic (see Figure 1 in Chapter 2). The protection and sustainable use of the European eel stock in EU waters The ICES Stock Annex and the most recent ICES assessments show that the European eel stock is outside safe biological limits, the current fishery is not sustainable and that the stock has not recovered to any significant degree since 2010. The previous decline in recruitment and landings seem to have levelled out, although recruitment remains at historically low levels, which is an indication that the reproduction is seriously impaired. The stock stabilisation is likely to have been supported by the reduction in fishing effort in many MSs but stock recovery is a long-term goal that can be achieved through addressing spawner escapement through habitat rehabilitation and improved connectivity. Only a combination of several measures can be expected to bring the stock out of its current critical state.

According to science, an analysis of the stock dynamics under different management regimes indicates that the recovery time for eel could be at least 20 years or much more, or three eel generations (although eel generations differ with location across Europe, an average of 18 years per generation). Some MSs consulted argue that it can even take up to 50 years or more for the eel to recover. Concerns about the conservation and the unsustainable exploitation of the eel stock have been growing and the need for conservation and management measures is clearly identified by scientists, managers, various stakeholders and by the public. The protective measures to recover the eel population in Europe were widely supported by the respondents to the Public Consultation. Moreover, many stakeholders consider that the ‘black’ market and trade of eels has implications for both European eel management and recovery. It is clear that the recovery of the European eel is a long-term process that will take decades rather than years to progress given the long life-span of the species (e.g. 20 years). Overall, the Eel Regulation has not yet proven its effectiveness in reaching its objective of achieving the appropriate protection and sustainable use of the European eel stock in EU waters that would reflect the recovery of the stock. This is further evidenced below. Sustainable fishing of eels ØOn EMP and escapement target The key objective of the Eel Regulation and consequently of the EMPs is to achieve a target of 40% escapement of spawners (e.g. silver eels). This is a long-term objective, although no definite time period is specified. The management biomass reference limit of 40% for eels is considered as a common proxy for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) under the Common Fisheries Policy, however there are difficulties in applying the MSY approach to catadromous species such as the European eel, which spends a part of its life in marine waters and mostly in fresh waters. The evaluation finds as confirmed by the scientific advice that the spawner (silver eel) escapement from the majority of EMU is below the 40% target. Currently, the achievement of this target by MSs has been analysed as: -fully implemented in EE and IE (in all EMU but one); -partially in DE, ES, UK; -not implemented in BE, DK, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE; -not clear in CZ, FI, FR, EL, PT. This indicates that it will take considerable more time to achieve EMP targets by MSs. The Public Consultation respondents were much less convinced that the overall aim of achieving the 40% eel escapement target was achievable. Some scientists suggested that focusing on mortality and setting mortality targets in line with the long-term objective of 40% silver eel biomass may be a more appropriate harvest strategy. This is echoed by the recent report to the European Parliament (Hanel, 2019), providing that a number of authorities argue that a move from current 40% regional level escapement targets to a mortality-based target would also be in better agreement with ICES advice on eels (“all anthropogenic mortalities should be reduced to as close to zero as possible”). ØOn fishing effort reduction The information on fishing effort reduction in those MSs who have not established their EMP and were not exempted by the Commission, and who operate a fishery in EU waters that catches eels, is not available. The Eel Regulation does not provide for a reporting mechanism in this regard. Limiting eel fisheries and fishing effort reduction is a measure that features in many EMPs. This information is necessary to correctly interpret the changes to the landings data over the years. The most recent results for the six top eel fishing MSs in the EU (note that FR did not submit effort data in 2018) suggest that effort has declined in SE (by over 90%), IT (just over 50%), DK (by almost 50%) and DE (by 25%). However, effort appears to have risen to 135% of 2008 levels in the UK and 180% of the 2012 level in PL. See also Annex 6. The wild eel fisheries landings varied between 8,000 and 10,000 t until the early 1990’s when they declined to the current levels of around 2,500 t since 2010 onwards, where they are now broadly stable.

It needs to be also highlighted that the impact of recreational fisheries on the eel stock remains largely unquantified although landings can be thought to be at a similar order of magnitude to those of commercial fisheries. A number of stakeholders contacted as part of this evaluation called for recreational fisheries for eel to be phased out or substantially reduced, often citing the example of FR, IE and SE in banning recreational eel fishing. According to ICES (2013c), almost all countries planned management measures for recreational fisheries. However there has been little or no monitoring of the effects. ØOn restocking The Eel Regulation requires that at least 60% of glass eels caught in each MS, who permits fishing for eels less than 12 in length, should be reserved and used for conservation-oriented restocking (or translocation) within the EU. Stocking is a measure that features in many EMPs. By 2013, stocking of glass eel was undertaken in 16 MSs. The amount of glass eels restocked increased in 2014 when the lower market prices guaranteed a larger number of glass eels could be purchased for fixed restocking budgets but has decreased since then (see Figure 6 below). Whilst stocking is a measure that features in many EMPs, only six countries achieved their EMP stocking target (ICES, 2016c). The figure above shows that the overall target of 60% use of reported catch in restocking was only achieved in 2014 when there was a plentiful supply of glass eels, but it has dropped to around 22% in 2018. Most EMUs had undertaken a limited quantity of their stocking targets while a few had yet to implement any of their stocking actions. The most common reason given in 2013 for a country being unable to achieve its stocking target was a lack of funding to buy glass eel, which was different from that given in the recent past when the cost of glass eel was given as the cause. More recently the limited availability of glass eel for stocking was highlighted, a situation exacerbated by the high cost and considerable administrative process required to tender for glass eel supplies under the EMFF. One major stakeholder involved in glass eel restocking noted (i) as the lowest of three tendered has to be taken, the quality of such supply is often poorer than more expensive tenders and (ii) it is difficult to forecast the actual price of glass eels in advance, which discourages glass eels stakeholders from tendering for MS restocking programmes in advance. The benefit of stocking can be considered at three geo-political scales: ·local interests (the production gained locally by stocking); ·the national/EMU scale of EMPs (applying stocking to achieve EMP biomass targets); ·the continent-wide scale (stocking contributing to the general recovery of the stock). Concerns about the effects of eel stocking practices (e.g. spread of disease, illegal trade, stocking above dams and hydro barriers) and its effectiveness in contributing to increased silver eel production have been raised. Scientific reviews of restocking as a management measure (ICES, 2010b; Pawson, 2012; ICES, 2013c; ICES, 2016c) concluded that there is evidence that translocated and stocked eel can contribute to yellow and silver eel production in recipient waters. However, the scientific evidence of further contribution to actual spawning and the overall biomass increase of the stock is limited. Whilst a local benefit may be apparent, an assessment of net benefit to the wider eel stock is unquantifiable and limited by the lack of knowledge on the spawning of any eel. ICES also suggest that stocking should take place only when survival to silver eel escapement is high and should not be used as an alternative to reduce anthropogenic mortality. Moreover, the translocation of eels, although effective in maintaining or supporting eel populations in compromised river systems, is considered an expensive and often administratively burdensome process. It is noted that restocking/translocation of glass eel should be considered a short to medium term measure that could be phased out if natural recruitment and spawner escapement were improved. ØEel aquaculture It should be noted that eel aquaculture is based on wild recruits, and part of them is subsequently released as on-grown eel for restocking. The farmed production of European eel increased until the end of the 1990s. It clearly starts to decline since the mid-2000s from 8,000–9,000 tonnes to approximately 5,000–6,000 tonnes now (see also Annex 6). In 2017, the reported quantities of eels produced in aquaculture is 4,546 tonnes. NL and DE are the main EU aquaculture producers. Reproduction of the European eel has not yet been achieved in captivity and glass eels are normally purchased from the UK, French and less frequently Spanish and Portuguese wild fisheries. Progress is being made in terms of spawning, nursing and weaning onto first diets (Butts et al, 2016) but the large-scale, closed cycle farming of eels is not yet achievable. Until this is achieved, aquaculture is still dependent upon glass eels and therefore has not reduced the pressure on wild stocks as yet. It is also noted that there are associated risks attached to stocking glass eel, young yellow eel and on-grown eel from aquaculture. As identified by scientists, those risks include spread of parasite, diseases, altering sex ratios, genetic and biological fitness. ØOn control and enforcement measures, including traceability MSs are required to establish a control and catch monitoring system adapted to the circumstances and to the legal framework already applicable to their inland fisheries, which must be consistent with the relevant provisions on the fisheries control system. The eel control measures fall under the responsibility of different Ministries (e.g. agriculture and fisheries, environment, finances) and in case of surveillance activities also under the mandate of police and military forces. All countries reported having implemented cooperation mechanisms between the different entities in charge of control through dedicated steering platforms.

Analysis based on the targeted consultations on control issues, suggests that control and enforcement activities in support of the EMP have taken place in EU waters and in their territories, and at all stages of the eel supply chain. The eel fisheries control have been subject to a risk-assessment analysis to identify priorities. A number of MSs identified as main risks the illegal fishing in freshwater bodies of eels at all life stages, illegal trade in the aquaculture sector, misreporting of catches. All MSs consulted have a registration of professional fishermen and eel buyers for catches in marine waters or freshwater as considered by Article 10 of the Eel Regulation. Catch registration systems have been established. However, control of the eel fisheries is hindered by some shortcomings in the EU control system in relation to control of activities of vessels of less than 10 m that form the bulk of the fleet targeting eels and in relation to post-landing documentation (sales notes, transport documents). As a result, traceability of eels is difficult to establish, in particular when eels are transported from a MS to another to fulfil MS obligations for restocking or to provide livestock for aquaculture farms. Also, the monitoring and control of recreational eel fisheries appear largely insufficient. According to MSs consulted, full traceability of eels is not readily available. As recognised by the Commission own evaluation of the EU Control System, most MSs have not yet fully implemented traceability system enforced by the Control Regulation (Article 58) that is the paper-based and concern eel caught in marine waters. However, eels caught or farmed in freshwater are not excluded from the scope of the Control Regulation. To note, DK has implemented a “net to plate” electronic traceability system but limited to marine species. SE reported having a national electronic traceability system from 2019, with reflexions to extend it to freshwater products in a near future. Traceability is particularly an issue for live glass eels traded between MSs to supply aquaculture farms, for direct consumption or for restocking operations. MS authorities inspecting lorries with eels may encounter difficulties to ascertain the validity of the document presented in case of control. Some MSs indicated relying (or having relied) on CITES rules for controlling the legality of eels transported to another MS. Nonetheless, certain countries have implemented practices that go beyond the minimum EU requirements. These include more stringent conditions for monitoring glass eel catches (FR, UK), use of modern technologies to detect illegal fishing (DK, EE, LT, LV, PL, SE), coordination of police forces at national level to fight illegal trafficking of glass eels (ES, FR) or support of citizens for reporting suspected infringements (DK, SE, UK, and PL). Some countries (e.g. EL, IT and SE) have used the opportunity provided by Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) N°338/97 to involve their CITES management authorities in the national control system through national instruments (permit scheme in EL, CITES registries in IT and SE). Supply chain traceability has increased as a result of actions taken at MS level to ensure that legally caught eels are accounted for via statutory reporting as well as through voluntary mechanism such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or the Sustainable Eel Group (SEG)’s Standard. As regards the control of restocking practices, feedback from MSs tends to indicate that the obligations set out in Article 7 of the Eel Regulation are applied differently. In particular, Article 7(3) of the Eel Regulation requires MSs to establish an appropriate reporting system to ensure that the 60% glass eels reserved for restocking (in accordance with Article 7(1)) are used for this purpose. Arguably, MSs implement such reporting systems only for activities under their competence (i.e. for glass eels caught in their territory and by their vessels used for restocking operations in their territories). For glass eels caught in its territory but used for restocking in another country, the monitoring system implemented by the country at the origin of the glass eel catch covers only the lots up to the borders but not beyond. Finally, the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1986 includes for the first time ever eel fisheries in the scope of Specific Control and Inspection Programmes (SCIPs) to be implemented by MSs under the operational coordination of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). This will further encourage the cooperation between MSs and harmonisation of approaches to control. As regards the traceability of exported and imported eels, MSs are required under Article 12 of the Eel Regulation to take all measures necessary to identify the origin and ensure the traceability of all live eels imported or exported from their territory - whether glass eels for restocking or yellow and silver eels for human consumption. However, a zero-import/export policy was set for the EU in 2010, meaning that it was irrelevant for MS to establish a traceability system for eels imported and exported from their territory. MS had to ensure that the external trade prohibition was complied with, which for some countries (e.g. ES, FR) required substantial efforts supported by the involvement of EUROPOL initiatives against environmental crime. One glass eel trader noted that “Traceability is an extra burden for legitimate traders whilst the illegal trade is inadequately controlled”. Some in the glass eel trade consider that the EU external trade prohibition has actually contributed to illegal exports of glass eels from the EU in that it has increased prices and reduced overall traceability and understanding of eel flows out of the EU. One particular issue raised by stakeholders is that the distribution range of European eel exceeds the borders of the EU and consequently eels of different geographical origin cannot be distinguished by genetics. In general, there is a need to better harmonise traceability systems, both within and especially between different MSs, to properly account for eel supply chain origin, volumes and final fate. The EU Control Regulation, combined with the IUU Regulation, requires traceability for all species (including eel), but this is still far from an effective system. Its implementation needs considerable improvement, including digitisation and other methods of automated mass balance analyses. This therefore requires concerted efforts both at MS levels as well as at EU level to implement. It should be noted that the proposal for the revision of the fisheries control system addresses some shortcomings by extending monitoring and reporting requirements to small-scale vessels and reporting requirements to recreational fisheries, and modernising the system to record and report fishing activities that would become fully electronic, irrespective of the vessels' size. In summary, the week traceability system from “net to plate” undermines the effectiveness of the Eel Regulation as regards measures concerning control and traceability. The main weakness of the system is not just the varying ability and willingness of MS authorities to trace and track post-harvest eel movements but is also the lack of an EU-wide traceability system. Protection and conservation of aquatic habitats ØOn environmental measures to increase eel recruitment, survival and escapement Apart from fishing, other major anthropogenic influences on the eel stock include: hydropower turbines/pumps and other physical obstacles to eel migration; pollution, diseases and parasites; and, habitat modification, all of which are thought to have contributed to the decline in eel escapement rates and associated recruitment. Non-fisheries mortality can be reduced through various different approaches, e.g. improving upstream and downstream migration through removal of barriers and reducing mortality within hydroelectric installations. The structural measures to make rivers passable and improve river habitats, together with other environmental measures have the potential to make the most profound, long-term impacts on eel stocks. However there is little quantifiable evidence in the EMP Progress Reports to assess what actions have been taken as a result of the Eel Regulation to make rivers passable and improve river habitats or the impact this might have had on spawner escapement rates. Actions on habitat improvements were addressed in EMPs and 2012 progress reports of many EMUs. The descriptions of the actions taken, as well as the expected impact on escapement or mortality were often unspecific, vague and lacking specific reference to eel-specific habitats (ICES, 2013c). Most measures on habitat improvement were related to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and therefore not specifically related to the EMP. Progress in implementation is often unclear. When actions concerning habitat are considered (e.g. by water level fluctuation to flood meadows), the effect on silver eel production and escapement would be expected only in the long term, while actions focused on improvement of habitat quality (e.g. reduction of pollution) could have an immediate effect, not only on escapement and mortality but also on migration and reproductive success. To assess the effect of actions taken, monitoring data and knowledge are required. Nonetheless, there have been some local successes in terms of habitat restoration and improved spawner connectivity. Best practices for making in-river structures ‘eel-friendly’ and protecting them from hydro-power intakes have been developed and published in FR and the UK. There have also been attempts to start opening up migration routes and developing hydrological regimes that favour eel movement, particularly in FR and IT. Moreover, as noted by Hanel 2019, in ES a decree was established in 2015 obliging electricity companies to transport eels upstream of their facilities (Decree 35/2013). Many dams have been removed and passes have been installed. However available information does not allow estimating the available habitat increase. More details on best practices in eel conservation are presented in Annex 5.3.

Overall, the evaluation finds that the non-fisheries related anthropogenic mortality, whilst variable (can depend upon environmental conditions (flooding vs. drought) at the time of the down-stream migration), has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. EQ3. If the measures for the recovery of European eel stock under the Eel Regulation have only partially met the objectives in EQ 2, what factors have hindered their achievement and how? A number of barriers to eel stock recovery exist: 1.Hundreds of years of modifications to water courses e.g. dams, water abstraction structures and other barriers are a major cause of reduced spawner escapement. This is not easily reversed, as either removing obstructions or putting in mitigation structures e.g. eel passes are costly, often required complex permitting and are not always necessarily effective. This will be a long-term process, and will require continued pressure on both environmental regulators, as well as private sector users of water courses to include eel connectivity in forward planning and investment. 2.Continued loss of eel habitat through land reclamation and drainage of eel holding waters – although now usually subject to more scrutiny from environmental regulators, there is pressure in a number of MSs to develop and alter floodplains and water courses for urban, industrial and agriculture development. 3.IUU fishing for eels, especially juveniles, continues to hold back improvements in recruitment. Illegal glass eel trafficking could account for the mortality of between 20 – 100 tonnes (e.g. up to 300 million individuals) per annum, mainly driven by demand from Asian eel aquaculture. Stakeholders suggest that this trade is facilitated by austere conditions in rural coastal and estuarine areas and the potential high financial rewards involved. In many cases glass eels are caught in one MS, moved to another and then exported to Asia either directly or possibly via a neighbouring non-EU country, such as in North Africa. 4.Differing levels of eel management through the EU. In ES, for instance, eel management is conducted by the different autonomous regions, where regulations and approaches can differ, even within the same EMU. At a wider level, the large number of organisations involved in fisheries, water and environmental management, both within and between MSs, means that coordination is a major challenge. 5.Lack of comprehensive data: despite the focus of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eel (WGEEL), as well as annual and periodic reporting requirements from MSs via the Eel Regulation, data provision and knowledge is highly variable across the EU. Total landings and effort data is incomplete and inconsistent. Only 75 EMUs (from a total of 116) submitted data to WGEEL in 2018 on both total fisheries mortality rates and total non-fishing mortalities rates. This has consequences for the ability for establishing harvest control rules and other eel conservation measures. 6.Increased mortality from the recovery of predator populations – the recovery of, or increase in, predators such as the cormorant (Hansson et al, 2017) or the silurid catfish has increased the rate of natural mortality in eel populations. Whilst a natural function of a healthy ecosystem, this may hinder recovery of depleted species such as the European eel. 7.Limited uptake of funding available to implement the Eel Regulation. The Eel Regulation promotes a number of measures which generate costs for public authorities – such as restocking, monitoring, and enforcement – and private stakeholders – such as the reduction of the fishing effort. These measures have been eligible for support under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (2014-2020) but uptake has been limited. However it is recognised that overall funding for eel conservation has increased as a result of the Eel Regulation. The Public Consultation results suggest that factors hindering effectiveness of the Eel Regulation are mainly beyond the regulation itself. Most respondents highlighted external factors, such as inability to reduce hydropower mortality or poaching, and insufficient implementation of the policy at the national level. In feedback to the evaluation roadmap, hydropower mortality and illegal fishing were also mentioned, as well as the lack of traceability system, insufficient implementation of EMPs and oceanic factors. EQ4. To what extent has the Eel Regulation contributed to achieving the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular to ensure that fisheries and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies? Safeguard stock reproduction for high long-term yield The eel recruitment, whilst now stable, is at a historic low level and does not show any particular signs of improving. Stock stabilisation is likely to have been supported by the reduction in fishing effort in many MSs but stock recovery is a long-term goal that can only be achieved through addressing spawner escapement through habitat rehabilitation and improved connectivity. Lay the foundations for a profitable industry A glass eel ‘black’ supply chain has implications for both European eel management and recovery. This also impacts legitimate suppliers through price and other market distortions. They argue that controlling a limited external market would reduce the pressure for IUU fisheries and stabilise the market. In EL intensive aquaculture operators must give 10%, and extensive aquaculture operators 30% of their purchased glass eels for restocking without financial compensation, which has had repercussions on their business models. Share out fishing opportunities fairly The key issue is over legitimate versus IUU fishing. Legal, licensed fisheries are mainly based on traditional, local and gear specific enterprises. Volumes are relatively small and transactions mainly made through the formal banking system with a high level of transparency. Glass eel suppliers blame the unquantified but apparently significant black trade as unfair competition, e.g. not having the costs of accountable businesses, often deal in cash and supply the high value Asian aquaculture market. Cooperation and coherent actions at all levels The Eel Regulation sets common targets across the EU, however MSs take different approaches in achieving those targets, as well as in measuring stock indicators and in reporting.

An example of cooperation between various stakeholders is the process of the development of multi-stakeholder platforms in the preparation of regional EMPs in IT that involved all relevant operators, including fishers, vallicoltura farmers (traditional rearing, usually of wild stocked juveniles, in lagoons) and aquaculture operators. To date, only one transboundary EMP between ES and PT for Minho River has been delivered and approved by the Commission. However, the eel management issues are also discussed within the framework of international organisations managing transboundary rivers like the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine or similar international organisations managing the Meuse and Scheldt rivers. Nevertheless, there are no transboundary EMPs developed between EU MSs and third countries. In the field of control of eel fisheries, all MSs reported having implemented cooperation mechanisms between the different entities in charge of control through dedicated steering platforms, but no further details have been made available except in the case of FR and SE. In FR, a dedicated inter-ministerial task force has been created with the Gendarmerie coordinating investigations on environmental crimes (including eel poaching) and acting as focal point of international police networks (Interpol, Europol). In SE, coordination and cooperation between concerned authorities have been improved through exchange of information, common risk assessment and clarification of responsibilities of the different agencies involved. The cooperation between MSs and the harmonisation of approaches to control has been further encouraged through the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1986. It includes for the first time ever eel fisheries in the scope of Specific Control and Inspection Programmes (SCIPs) to be implemented by MSs under the operational coordination of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). SCIPs trigger cooperation and pooling of inspection resources between countries with the EFCA through joint inspection activities and ensure that target benchmarks for inspection established on the basis of risk-assessments are met. The strategic enforcement priorities and increased actions are also implemented by MSs both nationally and through cross-border joint actions against trafficking of eels under the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. Cooperation for the fight against illegal eel trafficking is supported by EUROPOL under the EMPACT ENVICRIME initiative (2017-2021). Joint operations, such as Europol-supported Spanish/Portuguese ‘Operations Elvers’ that saw the seizure of 350 kg of glass eels destined for China, demonstrate how multi-national, cross-jurisdictional control operations can work. Furthermore, the Eel Regulation has stimulated the Interreg Sudoe Programme of the European Regional Development Fund supporting a regional (FR, PT and ES) project (SUDOANG, 2018 – 2021) to provide tools and concerted methods in order to carry out an effective evaluation, management and monitoring of the European eel and its habitats. To achieve this, an interactive internet application has been created that houses tools to enable Anguilla-related managers to study indicators of population monitoring and different possible management scenarios. This is intended to assist decision-making based on better scientific evidence and in a more coordinated fashion, as all the indicators will be obtained using consensus models and methodologies among these participating partners. The evaluation finds there is a scope for improvement in terms of the transboundary cooperation in developing EMPs including with third countries. Clear interlinkages between EU policies and international instruments This will be further addressed below under the ‘coherence’ criterion. Opinions of the respondents to the Public Consultation on the effectiveness of the current measures for the recovery of European eel stock were mixed. Overall, the above analysis of the effectiveness criterion shows that the eel stock has not recovered to any degree, recruitment is at an all-time low, non-fisheries related anthropogenic mortality has not declined significantly over the last decade and that the 40% escapement target has not been achieved. It can therefore be concluded that the Eel Regulation has not yet proven its effectiveness in reaching its objective of achieving the protection and sustainable use of the European eel stock in EU waters that would reflect the recovery of the stock. 5.2.3.SUSTAINABILITY EQ5. Are the effects likely to last after the intervention ends? There is no ‘end date’ for the Eel Regulation. Both the management organisations and other stakeholders consider that the Regulation is a sustainable approach that needs to be maintained over a long-term. This is because the recovery of the European eel population is a long-term process, with some MSs considering 2050 as a reasonable date by which the Regulation’s target of 40% escapement across the EU might be reached. Once the European eel stock has fully recovered, at that point the Eel Regulation could be reconsidered and a management plan put in place. In the meantime the regular progress reports as required in the Regulation should be continued. Reducing commercial fishing activity may have a long-term impact on fishing mortality. Licenced fishing activity, especially for yellow and silver eels is likely to continue to fall as the elderly fishers drop out of the fishery and many of the traditional markets for eels are in decline. However, the risk is that IUU fishing and illegal trade – driven by the high price paid in Asia for European glass eels, may have implications for stock recovery and thus sustainability of the intervention. One key measure under the Regulation, restocking, is questioned and considered as a short to medium term measure that should be phased out as natural recruitment and water course connectivity improves. Structural measures to make rivers passable and improve river habitats with other environmental measures have the potential to make the most profound, long-term impacts on eel stocks. Opinions about the sustainability of the effects of the Eel Regulation presented in the Public Consultation were diverse. A slight majority of respondents indicated that effects of the intervention would not last after it ended. A significant proportion of respondents, about one third, selected the “don’t know” option to this question. This does not necessary suggest a weakness in the sustainability of the intervention, but rather recognition that it is a long-term process. In needs to be also noted here that respondents to the Public Consultation were asked in the part relating to the EU Added Value to indicate which consequences they foresaw if the intervention would be withdrawn. Most (almost two thirds) referred to negative consequences, mainly the eel population being more endangered and a risk that MSs will no longer implement protective measures. The evaluation does not conclude comprehensively on whether the effects of the Eel Regulation are likely to endure since the recovery of the eel is a long process.

5.2.4.EFFICIENCY EQ6. To what extent have the costs associated with implementing the Eel Regulation been proportionate to the environmental and socio-economic benefits that this has generated? Could the same results have been achieved with less funding? A monetarised analysis of the cost-benefits of the Eel Regulation is impossible to provide at this stage, as MSs do not quantify the direct costs of implementing the Regulation, the responsibility for which is often spread across a number of different government departments. The direct environmental benefits of the EMP actions (e.g. eel stock recovery through reduced fishing mortality and increased spawner escapement) and the indirect environmental benefits (reconnected coastal, estuarine and riverine ecosystems) are long-term in nature, still nascent and yet to be fully quantified in terms of their environmental benefits. Likewise it is difficult to quantify the socio-economic benefits of the EMP measures to date, especially given landings have stabilised and fishing effort has (mainly, but not in all Member States) reduced. Only when stock recovery becomes more evident and fishing opportunities consolidated will the socio-economic benefits become more apparent. In addition there is some evidence that the growth of a parallel IUU fishery and unregulated supply chain to serve the Asian aquaculture market since the European eel was included in the CITES Appendix II and banned by EU MS authorities for extra-EU export has impacted on the sustainability of traditional, licensed eel fisheries. The synergies with the WFD, MSFD and the Habitats Directive are also important factors in improving the efficiency of the Eel Regulation. Feedback from the MSs on this subject has been limited. Calculating the administrative burden and associated costs is complex, especially where EMUs are managed at local levels. Administration loads are also spread across fisheries management, fisheries control and environmental management bodies, which in many cases operate under separate budgets and planning systems. In some MSs functions such as restocking may be outsourced to the private sector. Moreover, it is considered that restocking and translocation of eels, although effective in maintaining or supporting eel populations in compromised river systems, is considered an expensive and often administratively burdensome process that has to be paid mainly through the EMFF. The difficulty to measure cost-effectiveness of the Eel Regulation and its implementation at the national level has also been confirmed in the Public consultation. Most respondents were not able to assess whether the administration and implementation of the regulation had been carried out at the lowest possible cost. EQ7. Could the use of other policy instruments or mechanisms have provided better cost-effectiveness? The main finding of this evaluation is that the Regulation is essentially sound e.g. it has enabled the EU MSs to develop and monitor EMPs, and thus most MS respondents indicated that alternative approaches have not been considered. However, it is recognised that the implementation of many of the measures is a long-term process, and that many aspects are still yet to be fully realised. EQ8. How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and monitoring? In 2012, 18 of 19 countries with EMPs produced progress reports. Only six countries provided all the stock indicators required by the Eel Regulation, nine reported incomplete data and three did not provide any of the required stock indicators. Furthermore, since the national reports did not follow a standard format, the level of detail of the reporting differed significantly, and reports were written in a range of languages. This made the assessment of the reports a challenging exercise. In 2015, 14 of the 19 MS submitted progress reports. In April 2018, the Commission facilitated MS reporting and assessment to make those more efficient by providing seven Excel templates developed with ICES, as regards the overview of stock indicators by EMU, biomass indicators, mortality quantities, mortality rates, stocking, management measures and fishing effort. The completion of these templates was highly recommended but not compulsory. Overall, reporting by MSs was not complete. Of those MSs with EMPs; LU and PT did not report at all, the CZ, FI and IE provided a description but no data tables, and FR and PL did not provide all seven data tables; the CZ, FI, EL, IE, LV, PL and ES reported after the deadline. Moreover, since the first reporting round in 2012, no MS reports on glass eel prices have been submitted to the Commission, although BE, DK, EE and the UK have provided some price data in their 2018 progress reports. This represents a major failure in the Regulation’s monitoring requirement. Based on partial analysis of the 2018 progress reports, ICES made several recommendations (ICES 2018d) on the reporting format and content suggesting to make them obligatory and highlighted that it would reduce the burden on MSs if reporting requests from the Commission, ICES and other could be coordinated and combined. Overall, the evaluation finds it difficult to provide for the monetarised analysis of the cost-benefits of the Eel Regulation at this stage. It also finds that progress reporting on the implementation of the EMP by MS needs improvement to be more harmonised and robust. 5.2.5.COHERENCE EQ9. To what extent are the measures for recovery of the European eel stock under the Eel Regulation coherent with wider policy and interventions which have similar objectives (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy, fisheries control regulation, environmental legislation and in particular Water Framework Directive)? The assessment of the coherence criterion presented below is based on the desk research/study and some stakeholder consultations, unless otherwise stated.

FISHERIES LEGISLATION The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) aims to ensure that fishing and aquaculture are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and that they provide a source of healthy food for EU citizens. Its goal is to foster a dynamic fishing industry and ensure a fair standard of living for fishing communities. The scope of the CFP includes the conservation of marine biological resources and the management of fisheries targeting them. In addition, it includes, in relation to market measures and financial measures in support of its objectives, fresh water biological resources and aquaculture activities, as well as the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products, where such activities take place on the territory of MS or in Union waters. A key objective of the CFP reform in 2013 is to restore or maintain fish stocks at levels that support maximum sustainable yield (MSY) by 2020 at the latest. Therefore, the CFP and its MSY objective is applicable to the European eel at certain stages in its life cycle. The Eel Regulation (2007), which precedes the reformed CFP (2013), includes the management of the European eels in marine, transitional and fresh waters, and considers both the impact of fisheries and the impact of environmental modifications. The Regulation sets an escapement biomass target of 40% of the spawning biomass, which is considered a proxy for MSY. There are however considerable difficulties in applying the MSY approach to catadromous species such as the European eel. The Eel Regulation has its primary focus on managing the fisheries-related anthropogenic mortality, mainly through increasing escapement rates and reducing fishing mortality. It however fully recognises the role of MS in implementing measures “as soon as possible to reduce the eel mortality caused by factors outside the fishery, including hydroelectric turbines, pumps or predators” (Article 2 (10)). This immediately introduced the need for coherence with other EU policies and regulations. Fishing Opportunities Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 fixed for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, mainly in form of species-specific Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas. Article 10 of this Regulation prohibits EU fishing vessels to fish European eel in marine waters of an overall length of 12cm or longer in EU waters of the ICES area for a consecutive three-month period to protect spawners during their migrations. The three-month time period was determined by each MS between 1 September 2018 and 31 January 2019. The fishing closure is relevant to spawning biomass of eels, so works cohesively with the 40% escapement target set in the Eel Regulation. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124 fixing the fishing opportunities for 2019 extended this approach by creating a consecutive three-month closure period for all fisheries of European eel at all life stages in relevant Union waters (including brackish waters such as estuaries, coastal lagoons and transitional waters). It was designed to be consistent with the conservation objectives set out in the Eel Regulation and with the temporal migration patterns of European eel (to be applied over the period between 1 August 2019 and 29 February 2020 for ICES waters, and at a period to be determined by each MS in the Mediterranean). For the Mediterranean, it transposes into the EU law the GFCM Recommendation GFCM/42/2018/1 establishing management measures for European eel in the Mediterranean Sea. Data collection framework Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes an EU framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the CFP. This EU data collection framework (DCF) is applicable to eels and covers inland waters, specifically establishing a programme for the collection of biological data on all stocks caught or by-caught in EU commercial and, where appropriate, recreational fisheries in