Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Development of a Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel
Date: 2003-10-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fish, fishing regulations, protection of animal life

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 01.10.2003
COM(2003) 573 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Development of a Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel

   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Development of a Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

Biological background ................................................................................................. 3

Fisheries for eels .......................................................................................................... 4

Evaluation of stock status and the Need for Action..................................................... 5

Legal background for management.............................................................................. 6

Community framework for action................................................................................ 6

Eels and international law ............................................................................................ 6

Eel management in the perspective of the Water Framework Directive ..................... 7

Management Measures................................................................................................. 7

A rebuilding plan for Eel ............................................................................................. 7

Establishment of local targets for conservation and management ............................... 8

6.2.1.

Settlement Targets........................................................................................................ 8

6.2.2.

Stocking Targets .......................................................................................................... 9

6.2.3.

Escapement Targets ..................................................................................................... 9

6.3.

6.4.

6.5.

6.6.

7.

8.

Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 10

Support for Local Management in Community Legislation ...................................... 10

Technical and Scientific Support for Local Management.......................................... 10

International Dimension............................................................................................. 11

Emergency Actions .................................................................................................... 11

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 12

8.1.

Commission Actions .................................................................................................. 13

8.1.1.

Establishment of Targets............................................................................................ 13

8.1.2.

Improvement of statistics ........................................................................................... 13

8.1.3.

Immediate Precautionary Actions .............................................................................. 13

8.1.4.

Improved Coordination of Community Eel Management ......................................... 13

8.1.5.

Promotion of the multilateral management of eels .................................................... 13

9.

10.

Resource Implications................................................................................................ 13

Timetable for Actions ................................................................................................ 14

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

The  European  eel  (Anguilla  anguilla)  is  a  fish  that  occurs  in  fresh  and  brackish  waters  in
almost all of Europe (including the Baltic and the Mediterranean) and in Northern Africa, as
well as in marine waters of the North Atlantic. The species migrates throughout the Atlantic
and adjacent seas to continental waters where its distribution area is estimated at ca. 90,000
km2.

Eels are exploited in most European countries and are involved in re-stocking and aquaculture
practices. The European eel is  therefore  important  not  only as  a  natural  asset but also as an
economic resource for European fishermen and aquaculturists.

Concerns about the conservation of this species has been growing for the last few years and
the need for conservation and management measures has been clearly identified by scientists,
managers,  and even by the public at large. The  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of
the Sea (ICES) recommended in its October 2002 report that a recovery plan for European eel
is urgently needed. ICES further advised that the rebuilding plan should include measures to
reduce exploitation of all life stages and restore habitats. ICES also recommended that if no
such plan is agreed, exploitation should be reduced to the lowest possible level.

At  present  conservation  measures  are  being  taken  at  national  level  in  Community  and  non-
Community countries. However,  given  the  fundamental  trans-boundary  migration  pattern  of
European  eel,  national  measures  are  not  sufficient  to  ensure  adequate  conservation  of  this
species in Europe. Hence the need for Community action.

The  conservation  and  management  of  eels  is  a  very  wide-ranging  issue.  Biologically,  the
conservation of eels depends upon the commercial exploitation as well as the preservation of
its  natural  habitats,  so  that  both  environmental  considerations  and  fisheries  management
issues  need  to  be  taken  into  account.  In  addition,  the  possible  effect  of  trade  on  the
conservation of this species adds an additional dimension to the problem. Furthermore, there
is also an animal and public health dimension.

The overall approach is centred on the ICES advice. A number of actions are identified that
are  intended  to  develop  a  comprehensive  basis  for  rebuilding  eel  stocks,  based  on  locally-
appropriate  actions  and  targets.  This  rebuilding  and  management  approach  requires
substantial acquisition  of  new  scientific  data  before  it  can  be  fully  implemented.  Therefore,
the Commission will urgently seek to identify a panoply of precautionary measures for rapid
implementation, while the rebuilding plan is being developed.

2.

BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Eels are a catadromous species, that is, a species that lives in fresh water but returns to the sea
to reproduce. The life  cycle of the species  has  not been  entirely resolved,  but  all traditional
evidence  suggests  that  the  life  cycle  occurs  as  follows.  Larval  eels  are  produced  from
spawning  grounds  in  the  Sargasso  Sea,  and  (after  an  undetermined  and  poorly  understood
drifting phase) these metamorphose to become  small "glass  eels" which  recruit to  European
estuaries and rivers. The glass eels migrate upstream and colonise a wide range of river, lake
and  wetland  habitats,  when  they  settle  from  a  pelagic  migratory  phase  to  become  "yellow
eels". These may continue migrating to thoroughly colonise the river basins. Eels spend most
of their lives  as  yellow  eels,  passing through a  growing  phase of the  order  of  ten  to  twenty

3

years. After this, the fish change their colour from the brown/yellow colouration of the yellow
eel phase to  the black and  silver  colouration  of  the  "silver  eel"  phase.  The  silver  eels  cease
feeding and begin the long downstream migration from the rivers to the estuaries and the sea,
after which they are presumed to migrate to the spawning areas.

Recent genetic evidence suggests that the long-established view that a single spawning stock
breeds  in  the  middle  of  the  Atlantic  and  replenishes  all  European  rivers  may  be  inaccurate.
Three  putative,  genetically  distinct  sub-groups  have  been  identified,  although  research  is
progressing on stock identity :

– 

– 

– 

the Northern European, corresponding to the Icelandic stocks;

the  Western  European,  including  Mediterranean,  western  European  and  Baltic
stocks;

the Southern European, corresponding to eel stocks of Morocco.

In  any  case, the territory and  coast  of  the Community seem  to  be  populated  by  a  single  eel
stock: the Western European one.

3.

FISHERIES FOR EELS

In Europe, eels are subject to a  variety  of  capture  fisheries  and  other  commercial  activities,
such  as  re-stocking  and  aquaculture.  Many  of  these  activities  are  of  long  standing.  Data  on
catches are not very reliable, but some unofficial estimates reach 30,000 tonnes per annum in
the 1990s, with a first-sale value of ca. € 200 million. An estimated 20,000 to 25,000 people
are involved in eel fishing, at least part-time. Many of these are non- professional fishers.

Fisheries  are  prosecuted  across  Europe  on  the  different  life  stages  of  the  species:  there  are
seasonal  fisheries  on  glass  eels,  year-round  fisheries  on  yellow  eels  and  seasonal  ones  on
silver eels. No targeted fisheries take place in oceanic waters but river mouths, coastal areas
with  brackish  waters  and  continental  fresh  water  bodies  are  all  subject  to  different  types  of
fisheries. These are pursued with a variety of gear. The marketing of eels also takes a variety
of forms but is generally very decentralised with multiple sales of small quantities in different
places: this makes it very difficult to monitor and control these fisheries. Consumer markets
for eels exist in all Member States of Europe, although these differ considerably in terms of
the sizes of eel sought. Germany and the Netherlands are the principal markets.

Intensive aquaculture of eels has existed for half a century and has steadily increased over the
last  decades.  Today,  it  produces  in  excess  of  10,000  tonnes  a  year.  Eel  aquaculture  is  still
based on the supply of glass eels from the wild, since artificial reproduction fails in the young
larval stage. Therefore aquaculture constitutes at present a form of exploitation of the wild eel
stock.  Export  of  glass  eels  for  aquaculture  in  countries  outside  Europe  is  also  an  important
economic activity.

Re-stocking is also a traditional practice, carried out in most Community Member States, in
some cases dating back to the 19th century. Re-stocking is based on the capture of eels from
the wild for their release in other areas. Most usually re-stocking activities are carried out at
the glass eel stage but yellow eels may also be used for this purpose. Re-stocking levels have
recently dropped due to the decrease in the  abundance of  glass  eels and  it is now estimated
that around 5% of total catches of glass eels are used for this purpose.

4

4.

EVALUATION OF STOCK STATUS AND THE NEED FOR ACTION

The most recent evaluation of the eel stock was made by the ICES-EIFAC Working Group on
Eels in October 20021. ICES considers that the stock is outside safe biological limits and that
fisheries in recent years have not been sustainable2. Recruitment has declined since 1980 and
reached  an  historical  low  point  in  2001.  Recent  information  indicates  that  no  improvement
can be expected for 2002. Fishing mortality is high on both juvenile and older eels in many
water  systems.  Other  anthropogenic  factors  (habitat  loss,  contamination  and  transfer  of
diseases)  have  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  stock,  possibly  of  a  magnitude  comparable  to
exploitation.

ICES cannot define a stock-wide management objective. Such an objective would need to be
defined internationally and to target the whole continental distribution area.

ICES  advice  from  ACFM  (October  2002)  is  that:  “ICES  recommends  that  an  international
rebuilding  plan  is  developed  for  the  whole  stock.  Such  a  rebuilding  plan  should  include
measures  to  reduce  exploitation  of  all  life  stages  and  restore  habitats.  Until  such  a  plan  is
agreed upon and implemented, ICES recommends that exploitation be reduced to the lowest
possible level”. ICES further informed that "Actions that would lead to a recovery of the stock
are urgently required. Management of eel fisheries requires co-ordinated action at the scale of
catchment  areas  and  higher,  commonly  spanning  multiple  jurisdictions.  Uncoordinated
management actions in isolated areas are not likely to lead to a recovery of the stock. Because
of  the  length  of  the  life  cycle,  it  will  take  5  to  20  years  before  positive  effects  can  be
expected."

A  rebuilding  plan  may  use  different  instruments.  A  comprehensive  analysis  of  different
management  instruments  for  eel  fisheries  are  provided  in  the  report  of  the  ICES/EIFAC
Working Group on Eel, adopted in 2001.3

The  eel  stock  is  seriously  depleted  as  evinced  by  the  recent  very  low  recruitment.
Furthermore,  due  to  the  high  price  of  eels  (especially  glass  eels),  there  are  very  strong
economic  incentives  to  continue  fishing  down  to  the  last  few  recruits.  The  long  time-lag
between  recruitment  and  spawning  also  suggests  that  profitable  fishing  can  continue  even
when  the  stock  is  at  an  extremely  depleted  level.  This  means  that  the  eel  stock  is  in  an
extremely high-risk situation.

These  characteristics  point  to  a  strong  need  for  urgent  management  action.  This  is  also
supported by the precautionary principle, which suggests that high-risk situations need urgent
protective measures. In many areas, the quickest and most effective measure to increase the
survival of eel will be a reduction in fishing, whereas environmental improvements may take
some years to show results.

1

2

3

Report of the ICES/EIFAC Working Group on Eels. ICES C.M. 2003/ACFM:06
Report  of  the  ICES  Advisory  Committee  on  Fishery  Management,  1998.  ICES  Coop.  Res.  Rep.  No.
229.
Report of the ICES/EIFAC Working Group on Eels. ICES C.M. 2002/ACFM:03

5

                                                
5.

LEGAL BACKGROUND FOR MANAGEMENT

5.1.

Community framework for action

Article 1 of Council Regulation 2371/2002 establishes a very wide scope for the application
of  Community  measures in the  field of  fisheries  management,  including  ‘on  the  territory  of
Member  States’.  However,  the  definition  of  ‘living  aquatic  resource’  in  Article  3(b)  of  the
same regulation limits the definition to catadromous species ‘during their marine life’. Such a
definition would seem to exclude the management of eels during their  fresh water  life from
the scope of Regulation 2371/2002.

Community management of eels during their marine life alone would clearly be insufficient,
since most human activities that affect eels take place in fresh waters. It must be said, in this
context, that the spirit of Council Regulation 2371/2002 is clearly to bring all living aquatic
resources,  including  catadromous  species,  under  the  scope  of  Community  action  when  and
where necessary. From that point of view, the Commission believes that Council Regulation
2371/2002  does  not  constitute  a  barrier  to  the  management  of  eels,  including  during  their
fresh water life, at Community level.

Community  competence  in  the  management  of  eels  may  be  inferred  directly  from  the  EC
Treaty (in particular, Article 37). However, in order to bring more clarity to the relevant legal
texts,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  definition  of  'living  aquatic
resources' in Article 3(b) of Regulation 2371/2002, which will remove the words ‘during their
marine life’ in respect of catadromous species.

5.2.

Eels and international law

Catadromous  species  are  the  subject  of  particular  treatment  in  international  law:  UNCLOS
has  a  specific  article  (Article  67)  laying  down  the  general  principles  applicable  to  the
management  of  these  species.  These  principles  (different  from  those  applicable  to  other
species such as sedentary, highly migratory, anadromous, etc.) are briefly the following:

(cid:1)  Coastal  State  responsibility  for  management  but  with  an  obligation  for  States  through

whose EEZs the stock migrates to reach agreement on management measures;

(cid:1)  Prohibition to fish in the high seas;

(cid:1)  Obligation to ensure ingress and egress of the migrating fish.

These elements point to the need for  a co-operative, transnational approach to management.
They also bring into play an important transnational environmental factor: the need to ensure
that rivers  do not become barriers (through pollution  or  public  works)  for  the  movement  of
the species through its natural habitat.

After  the  enlargement  of  the  Community,  as  of  May  2004,  most  of  the  river  basins  of  the
European  eels  stocks  will  be  within  the  Community.  However,  these  river  catchments  will
still include  some  third  countries.  Hence  it  is  necessary  to  bring  the  management  of  eels  to
multilateral  bodies.  Some  possible  approaches  to  establishing  multinational  management
measures are described in Section 6.6.

6

5.3.

Eel management in the perspective of the Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (EC) No 2000/604 is a legislative framework to protect and
improve the quality of all water resources such as rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional and
coastal water within the European Union. The WFD was published and entered into force in
December 2000.  Member  States  must  incorporate  the  WFD  into  national  law  by  the  end  of
2003. Once this has taken place, many more steps must be taken to achieve “good status” of
all European waters by 2015.

One of the key elements of the Directive is the introduction of River Basin Management on a
Europe-wide scale including international co-ordination in transboundary river basins.

There  are  several  aspects  in  which  the  WFD  will  promote  the  objectives  of  the  eel  action
programme, in particular:

– 

– 

– 

– 

6.

by  considering  the  possibility  to  include  eel  as  a  species  which  is  an  indicator  of
"good ecological status" in relation  to  "river continuity", i.e. as a biological  quality
element;

by improving the "river continuity" through the programme of measures;

by  increasing  the  information  on  river  basin  scale  as  regards  obstacles  to  eel
migration;

by using the management system and the river basin authorities when setting targets
and implementing eel action programmes.

MANAGEMENT MEASURES

6.1.

A rebuilding plan for Eel

As noted above, there are many discrete and regional fisheries for eel at different stages in its
life cycle throughout Europe, and this is a stock which is biologically depleted and requires
urgent management action to secure recovery of the stock. This means that a large number of
local measures need to be taken in order to improve growth and the escapement of adult eel
back to their spawning grounds. Local measures will all have some cost, whether this is due to
reduced  fishing  activity  or  to  investment  in  environmental  improvements.  These  costs  will
therefore be incurred by a wide variety of different of local actions.

Although  the  costs  will  be  local  and  diverse,  the  benefits  derived  from  improving  eel
escapement  will  be  an  increase  in  the  spawning  biomass  and  an  eventual  increase  in  the
recruitment  of  glass  eel.  This  will  be  a  generalised  benefit,  widespread  across  Europe  and
adjacent areas.

The challenge for the Community is rapidly to design a management system that ensures that
the  local  measures  produce  results  in  a  consistent  way  across  the  various  river  basins,
Member States, and adjacent countries. This eel management system should be one in which
all  stakeholders  make  a  contribution  to  stock  recovery,  and  those  contributions  should  be
quantified and equitably distributed.

4

O.J. L 237, 22.12.2000, p. 1-72

7

                                                
Current knowledge about eel stocks and their management is insufficient, however, to support
the development of such a system. The Community therefore needs to build the basis for such
a  management  system,  while  undertaking  some  emergency  measures  to  promote  stock
recovery.

The essentially local nature of eel management measures means that it is not appropriate for
the Community to be involved in the detail of implementing actions. The Commission's view
is  that  responsibility  for  the  attainment  of  the  local  eel  management  targets  should  remain
with  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  the  choice  of  management  instruments  to  reach  those
targets.

However, the Community should be responsible for:

(cid:1)  Establishing targets for eel management at different life stages;

(cid:1)  Collating information on and reporting on the effects of the measures in place;

(cid:1)  Proposing Community-level measures where these can reinforce local measures;

(cid:1)  Backing up local efforts by scientific and technical support;

(cid:1)  The international dimension of eel conservation.

These  ideas  are  developed  in  more  detail  below.  Some  emergency  measures  that  could  be
introduced as precautionary measures are further discussed in Section 7.

6.2.

Establishment of local targets for conservation and management

There are three  more-or-less  discrete  life stages  of eel, each  of which is  subject to different
mortalities  and  stresses.  Glass  eels  recruit  to  river  mouths  during  a  short  season,  may  be
fished  locally,  and  are  threatened  by  barriers  to  upstream  migration.  Yellow  eels  are
vulnerable over a long period to local fishing activity as well as to habitat degradation, but in
this phase they are largely sedentary and not affected by obstacles to migration. Silver eels are
threatened by obstacles to downstream migration and by some targeted fisheries.

The Commission considers it necessary to establish three kinds of targets, related to each of
the three life stages. Minimum standards should be established in Community legislation for
these targets, with adaptations of the values for the more productive river basins and possible
derogations for river basins of very low mortality. The values of target parameters should be
chosen after obtaining relevant scientific advice from ICES and EIFAC.

In  addition  to  these  targets,  maintenance  of  river  continuity  should  be  considered  a
contribution to good ecological status in the context of the Water Framework Directive. This
could  be  established  in  terms  of  free  migration  of  eels  of  all  life  stages  among  the  various
stretches of a river.

6.2.1.

Settlement Targets

In  order  that  the  productive  potential  of  river  basins  with  respect  to  eel  be  utilised,  it  is
essential  to  ensure  that  sufficient  glass  eel  are  recruited  to  the  upstream  areas.  The
Community should establish an annual settlement target, expressed in terms of the numbers of
glass eels per hectare of eel habitat. This would be used to set the levels of glass eel that are
needed in each river basin. Local management actions to reach this target would include:

8

(cid:1)  Management of the local glass eel fishery to allow sufficient escapement;

(cid:1)  Construction of passes in dams to allow elver migration upstream;

(cid:1)  Restocking using glass eels from nearby estuaries.

6.2.2.

Stocking Targets

Once an adequate number of glass eel are recruited to the river basins it is necessary to ensure
that  the  yellow  eel  stock  is  maintained  with  sufficiently  low  mortality  that  an  adequate
number of silver eel are produced from the stock. Maintaining a high biomass of yellow eel is
not sufficient  by itself  to  ensure  silver  eel  production,  if  a  high  biomass  is  maintained  by  a
high stocking rate and then reduced by a high fishing mortality. A high biomass of young fish
that are being heavily fished would not necessarily produce more silver eels. Local actions to
reach such stocking targets may include:

(cid:1)  Restrictions on local fisheries, such as closed seasons, closed areas, restrictions on types of

fishing gear and management by local fishing licences;

(cid:1)  Establishment of minimum landing sizes;

(cid:1)  Habitat modification, extension and improvement;

(cid:1)  Restocking using eels from aquaculture production.

Yellow eel are also distributed in some coastal areas. Targets for such populations should also
be developed where possible.

6.2.3.

Escapement Targets

In conservation terms, the main objective of the eel management actions must be to allow an
adequate  escapement  of  silver  eel.  Good  stocking  of  yellow  eel  does  not  further  eel
conservation if the maturing fish cannot then escape to the spawning grounds. For example, a
study in the Netherlands5 indicates that of the female eel, only one in seven hundred survives
the downstream  migration to the  sea,  and  that  fishing  mortality  on  silver  is  high.  The  same
study indicates a mortality due to fishing on silver eels of 97%. The Commission believes it
necessary  to  establish  targets  for  the  survival  of  silver  eel  from  the  stage  of  its  "silvering"
until its migration to the sea.

Local management actions that could contribute to these targets could include:

(cid:1)  Managed escapement of silver eels from inland waters to the sea;

(cid:1)  Prohibition of certain fishing gears particularly likely to catch silver eel (e.g. fyke nets);

(cid:1)  Construction of eel passes in dams and hydroelectric installations.

5

Aal,  de  stand  van  zaken  (Eel  stocks,  the  current  situation).  Dekker  et  al.,  (2002)  Ministerie  van
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Directie Visserij, Den Haag, Netherlands.

9

                                                
6.3.

Data Collection

The  above-mentioned  targets  are  only  useful  management  instruments  if  current  conditions
can  be  measured  with  respect  to  such  targets.  In  order  to  enable  such  monitoring,  the
Commission  will,  after  obtaining  relevant  advice,  propose  a  comprehensive  data  collection
system for eel at the Community level to cover inter alia:

(cid:1)  Catches by fishery and by river basin;

(cid:1)  Escapement from each life stage to the next;

(cid:1)  Incoming recruitments;

(cid:1)  Determination of river continuity with respect to eel migrations;

(cid:1)  Mapping and habitat description and evaluation for rivers with eels;

(cid:1)  Predation and ecosystem effects.

The data collection system will be designed to be highly cost-effective in order to minimise
the  financial  burdens  on  local  authorities.  Part  of  the  data  collection  system  may  include
research  projects  under  contract  such  as  using  archival  satellite  "pop-up"  tags  to  trace  the
migration of silver eel.

6.4.

Support for Local Management in Community Legislation

As stated above, most eel management measures need to implemented at a local level (i.e. the
river  basin  level)  and  the  choice  of  management  instruments  to  achieve  the  targets  should
remain a local choice so far as possible. However, some measures can only be implemented
meaningfully  at  a  Community  level  (for  example,  minimum  sizes  for  marketing  purposes).
Some  measures  that  may  be  considered  desirable  in  most  areas  might  be  applicable  as
Community legislation (e.g. concerning the incorporation of eel passes in new dams, licensing
trading in eels, or the prohibition of directed fisheries for silver eel).

The  Community  environmental  policy  will  also  contribute,  through  the  reduction  of  water
pollution and the protection and recuperation of certain natural areas, to the improvement of
escapement levels. In order to better evaluate the possible effects of fishery measures on eels,
it  will  also  be  necessary  to  evaluate  the  contribution  of  environmental  improvement  to  that
objective.  However,  additional  measures  of  this  type  will  not  be  pre-decided  at  this  stage,
other than to note that the scope for Community actions remains open.

In some  areas,  extensive illegal fishing  for  glass eels is  a  major  problem,  the  activity  being
more intense than the legal fisheries. The Commission will consider the use of licensing and
trading measures to restrict and better regulate glass eel fishing activities.

Where  restrictions  to  protect  eel  stocks  are  put  in  place,  the  Commission  will  consider
proposing  financial  support  for  the  fishermen  concerned,  either  for  retraining  to  leave  the
sector or else to redirect their activities to other ends (e.g. glass eel restocking).

6.5.

Technical and Scientific Support for Local Management

Recent consultations with the stakeholders, managers and scientists concerned makes it clear
that  a  variety  of  local  eel  protection  measures  have  been  implemented  in  various  Member

10

States. This information is not readily available however, and it is necessary and valuable to
share  such  experiences.  A  compilation  and  publication  of  such  measures  at  the  Community
level  would  assist  local  authorities  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  new  management
measures.

The preferred framework for the Community coordination of management authorities within
river basins should be the management systems and river basin authorities established under
the Water Framework Directive. However, additional institutional systems may be needed to
address issues common to eel across several river basins such as:

(cid:1)  a coordinated approach to obtaining scientific advice on management;

(cid:1)  coordination of management measures and trans-border control issues;

(cid:1)  sharing of management experience.

6.6.

International Dimension

The  European  Inland  Fisheries  Advisory  Commission  (EIFAC)  established  in  1957  in  the
framework of FAO, seems to be the appropriate international body, together  with ICES and
GFCM, for the provision of scientific advice. As EIFAC is at present a scientific and advisory
organisation,  the  possibility  of  developing  a  management  body  within  FAO  should  be
considered.

As  many  river  basins  span  several  Member  States,  the  attainment  of  the  various  targets
described above will in some cases require coordinated action between two or more Member
States. The obligations to reach the targets concerned would apply to all Member States with
eel fisheries in the transnational river basins, but the way in which those obligations should be
met  will  require  discussion  and  negotiation  among  small  groups  of  Member  States.  These
discussions  could  be  held  in  sub-groups  of  the  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and
Aquaculture.  Third  countries  also  fish  for  eel  stocks,  and  there  are  significant  interests  in
North  African  countries  as  well  as  a  smaller  participation  by  Russia  and  Norway.  Some
fisheries in  Icelandic and Faroes waters should be considered  also. For these  cases, existing
regional arrangements concerning shared stocks should be extended to cover eel management.
The  appropriate  fora  for  such  discussions  should  be  the  General  Fisheries  Council  for  the
Mediterranean (GFCM) and bilateral agreements with Russia and Norway. The Commission
will begin the development of eel management initiatives in these fora during 2004.

With  respect  to  the  oceanic  distribution  of  the  eel  and  its  presumed  spawning  area  in  the
Sargasso Sea, the Commission will keep under review any environmental changes in that area
that might affect the success of eel spawning and recruitment. Monitoring in this area should
be pursued in collaboration with the US and other interested countries, hence opportunities for
collaboration in this area will be followed up.

7.

EMERGENCY ACTIONS

Scientific advice from ICES is clear in that the present situation is sufficiently disquieting that
exploitation  of  eel  should  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  level  while  a  recovery  plan  is
being formulated. The Commission accepts this need and invites Member States to participate
in examining the emergency actions that could usefully be applied at Community level. The
classes of actions that should be examined are inter alia those identified by ICES, viz.

11

(cid:1)  Prohibition of fishing in specific areas or for specific life stages;

(cid:1)  Total allowable catches;

(cid:1)  Technical measures regulations;

(cid:1)  Landing size limits;

(cid:1)  Closed seasons;

(cid:1)  Closed areas;

(cid:1)  Licensing of fishermen;

(cid:1)  Local enhancement by restocking;

(cid:1)  Habitat restoration initiatives.

In  considering  such  measures,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  first  priority  should  be  to
maximise the escapement of silver eel. This is the measure that, with highest probability, will
enhance the recruitment of eel to the spawning stock. To secure this end, the Commission will
urgently address the issues of :

(cid:1)  a prohibition on fishing activities likely to catch silver eel;

(cid:1)  facilitation of downriver migrations for silver eel.

Subsequent actions will be aimed at ensuring  that sufficient  yellow  eel survive  the  fisheries
directed  at  them,  and  have  sufficient  appropriate  habitat  to  colonise.  Then  the  issue  of
ensuring that  sufficient  settlement of  glass eel  to  the  yellow  eel  habitats  will be considered.
This order of  actions  is preferred because  it is very  uncertain  what  benefit  any  reduction  in
glass eel fishing would bring if the yellow eel settlement carrying capacity is met or if silver
eel escapement is nugatory.

8.

CONCLUSIONS

The  Commission's  approach  to  securing  eel  management  is  to  establish  standard  targets  for
eel management conditions, and to propose legislation that places the responsibility to reach
these targets upon Member States. To complement this approach, the Commission will help
develop standard data collection systems to monitor the state of the stocks with respect to the
targets. The Commission will also pursue measures to improve coordination, information, and
research concerning eel. The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture could assist
the  Commission  in  these  activities.  The  Commission  will  also  seek  to  reach  international
agreements  concerning  eel  management  with 
third  countries.  Coordination  with
environmental policy will be maintained.

While these actions are being developed into a management plan for eel, the Commission will
examine a number of emergency measures that could be applied with immediate effect. The
highest initial priority will be placed on assuring the survival and escapement of silver eel on
their downstream migrations.

Specific actions are summarised below.

12

8.1.

Commission Actions

8.1.1.

Establishment of Targets

The  Commission  will  seek  scientific  advice  concerning  the  identification  of  appropriate
parameters  for  defining  targets  and  the  values  of  these  parameters  when  used  as  targets  for
settlement, stocking and escapement, having regard to the productivity of various river basins.
The Commission will then make legislative proposals.

8.1.2.

Improvement of statistics

The Commission will  seek  scientific  advice on  the development  of  a data  collection system
that is consistent with the definition of targets, and make corresponding legislative proposals.
The Commission will consider amending the current Community data collection scheme for
fisheries to include eel.

8.1.3.

Immediate Precautionary Actions

The Commission will, after seeking relevant scientific advice, propose the prohibition of the
use  of  fishing  gears  likely  to  catch  silver  eel  in  specific  areas  and  seasons.  Measures  to
facilitate the downstream migration of silver eel will also be proposed. This will be followed
by additional proposals to improve the survival of other life stages of eel.

8.1.4.

Improved Coordination of Community Eel Management

The  Commission  will  obtain  compilations  and  evaluations  of  legal  and  technical  measures
enacted in all Member States with the primary purpose of eel protection. It will also propose
that consultation processes concerning eel should be developed through ACFA.

8.1.5.

Promotion of the multilateral management of eels

The Commission will complement the initiative at Community level with a similar initiative
at  multilateral  level,  thus  bringing  relevant  non-Community  countries  into  the  efforts  to
manage  eels.  This  will  require  promoting  management  action  in  GFCM  and  in  bilateral
discussion.

9.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

After  a  review  of  data  collection  procedures,  the  Commission  will  consider  proposing  the
inclusion of eel in the Community fisheries data-collection programme, with a corresponding
adjustment of funding.

Proposals  will  be  prepared  concerning  additional  funding  for  specific  studies  to  be  funded
from the Community's budget line corresponding to the administration of the data collection
programme, not exceeding €0.5M in the period 2004-2006.

13

10.

TIMETABLE FOR ACTIONS

Commission Action

Anticipated Timing

Seek  advice  from  ICES  and  STECF  on
targets,  data 
technical
collection 
measures.

and 

through  a  call  for 

Seek  advice 
tender
compilations of legal and technical measures
existing in all Member States concerning eel.

Advice  requested  in  late  2003.  Provision  of
advice in mid 2004.

Tender published in early 2004. Provision of
advice in third quarter of 2004.

Discussion  with  Member 
emergency measures.

States 

on

Third quarter of 2003.

Propose measures to protect silver eel.

First quarter of 2004.

Propose  local  management  targets  for  each
life-stage  of  eel  in  the  principal  Community
river  basins, 
data
collection responsibilities.

corresponding 

and 

Fourth quarter of 2004.

Engage  RFOs 
concerning eel

in  parallel  discussions

From fourth quarter of 2003.

14