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
Date: 2014-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, fishing controls, fishing statistics, freshwater fish, pollution of waterways, protected species













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0640 - EN











|



52014DC0640

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 /* COM/2014/0640 final */









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
Background

This report is
presented to the European Parliament and the Council in line with Article 9(2)
of Council Regulation (EC) 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 (the Eel Regulation).[1]
The Eel
Regulation establishes measures for the recovery of the European Eel stock, the
abundance of which was at a historical low level and in constant decline at an
alarming rate with a recruitment situated between 1 and 5% of that observed in
the 1970s (a period when the state of the stock was considered healthy)
according to recurrent ICES advice in the 2000s. European eel is also included
in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) since 2009, which concerns species that are not necessarily threatened
with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled in order to avoid
utilization that is incompatible with their survival. This is reflected through
listing in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on
the protection of species of wild fauna and flora. In December 2010, the
Scientific Review Group (SRG) established under this Regulation 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".[2]
On that basis, the EU CITES Management Authorities have not been in a position
to allow export of eels from the EU since December 2010. 
The Eel Regulation
obliges Member States with river basins in their national territory that
constitute habitats for the eels, to establish and implement Eel Management
Plans (EMPs). These EMPs should contain management 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. In
particular, an EMP may contain measures, such as reducing commercial fishing
activity, restricting recreational fishing, restocking measures, structural
measures to make river passable and improve river habitats, transportation of
silver eel from inland waters, combatting predators, measures related to
hydro-electric power turbines, aquaculture, as well as any other measure
necessary for the achievement of the above mentioned 40% escapement target. In
addition, Member States that permit the fishing of eels less than 12 cm in
length (glass eels) have an obligation to reserve 60 % of their glass eel
catches for restocking purposes.[3]

State of
the Stock of European Eel
The Commission obtains regular
scientific advice from ICES on the state of the European eel stock. ICES has
provided advice on eel since 1999, revealing long-term declines in the
abundance of all stages (glass, yellow and silver) of the European eel stock
and in recruitment. 
According to the latest
ICES advice released in November 2013, the status of the eel stock remains
critical and urgent action is needed. The advice points out that there is an
increase in the annual recruitment of glass eels from less than 1% to 1,5% in
the North Sea and from 5% to 10% elsewhere over the last two years. However,
this increase should be put in historical perspective and does not affect
escapement of adult eel in the short term because of the duration of the eel
life cycle. Therefore, there is no change in the perception of the status of
stock as being critical at this stage. 
The available
scientific assessment was carried out on the basis of incomplete reporting and
a non-standardized data collection and methodology. As a consequence, it does
not fully assess the state of the stock, which spreads beyond EU waters. 
Scientific advice is
also provided by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which
has assessed in 2014 the species as critically endangered on the basis of a
sharp reduction in population size. IUCN concludes that there have been
substantial declines (90-95%) in recruitment of the European Eel across wide
areas of its geographic range during the period of the last 45 years due to a
range of threats facing eels at multiple life history stages.
State
of Implementation of Regulation 1100/2007
The implementation of
the Eel Regulation has suffered significant delays. EMPs were submitted late by
Member States (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 and the application of restocking measures were correspondingly
delayed. 
Nineteen Member States
have submitted EMPs. These plans contain various measures to reduce mortality
factors including fishing restrictions and non-fishing related actions, in
particular as regards the modification or removal of migration obstacles,
restocking, reduction of pollution, combatting of parasites. Before approval by
the Commission, all EMPs submitted were examined by ICES.
Six Member States were
exempted from the obligation to establish EMPs as their territory was deemed not
to constitute significant eel habitat (Article 3).[4]
Two Member States[5]
have not submitted plans, and were thus obliged by default to implement a 50%
reduction in eel fisheries (Article 4(2) of the Eel Regulation). 
Under Article 9(1) of
the Regulation, Member States have to report every three years on progress in
the implementation of their EMPs. These reports must provide, in particular,
the following information:
(a) for each Member
State, the proportion of the silver eel biomass that escapes towards the sea to
spawn, relative to the target level of escapement set out in Article 2(4);
(b) the level of
fishing effort exerted on eel each year, and the reduction realized in
accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(4);
(c) the level of
mortality factors outside the fishery, and the reduction realized in accordance
with Article 2(10);
(d) the amount of glass
eels caught and the proportions of this utilized for various purposes.
Most Member States met
the deadline for submission of the first progress report (30 June 2012).[6]
Disparities in the dates of adoption of the different Member States' EMPs
(between July 2009 and 2011), are also reflected in the progress reports. Some
national authorities and scientists have pointed out the lack of time to
collect data and/or assess the impact of the implementation of the EMPs. 
Statistical
and Scientific Evaluation of the Outcome of the EMPs
All Member States'
progress reports were submitted to statistical and scientific evaluation. Based
on an expert evaluation, scientific advice in response to Commission's ad
hoc request to technically evaluate the implementation of the EMPs was
received in June 2013.[7]
The advice confirmed that in most Eel Management Units (EMUs), i.e. the 81
management units established by Member States for the implementation of their
EMPs, progress was made in implementing management measures related to
fisheries, but that other management measures, such as improving habitats,
combatting parasites or predator control, have often been postponed or only partially
implemented. 
Generally speaking, in
the current situation, it remains difficult to assess the outcome of EMPs
against the 40% escapement target set by the Eel Regulation.
Scientific advice
underlines that the effectiveness of individual management measures cannot
always be demonstrated: necessary data are missing or the measures concerned
are not expected to produce their effects immediately or in the short term. For
instance, there is high probability that restrictions on fisheries for silver eel
have contributed to increases in silver eel escapement. However, management
measures targeting eels prior to the silver eel stage (for instance restocking)
are not expected to have yet contributed to increased silver eel escapement for
biological reasons (generational lag time, ranging from approximately 5 years
in Mediterranean lagoons to 25 - 30 years in northern Europe). Non-fisheries
measures related to hydropower, pumping stations and migration obstacles are
also difficult to evaluate at this point in time, mainly due to the
site-specific nature of potential impacts and lack of post-evaluation data. The
advice does not conclude that these management measures are ineffective or that
will not be effective in the longer term. 
 
For the reasons
explained above, it is not yet possible to determine on an individual basis the
contribution of EMUs to the recovery of the whole stock. According to the
Member States' progress reports, out of 81 EMUs, 17 EMUs are achieving their
biomass targets, in 42 EMUs this is 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, and 38 did not report all the
stock indicators necessary to make this evaluation. Scientific evaluation
further highlighted the value of assessments aiming to establish which
additional measures (other than fisheries restrictions) are most likely to
contribute to achieving management targets.[8]
Restocking
The Eel Regulation
obliges Member States who permit glass eels fishing to reserve at least 60% of
the catches for conservation-oriented restocking within the EU. However, it is
not certain that 60% of the total catches have been effectively restocked,
since it seems that the demand is not sufficient. Restocking is a measure
featuring in virtually all EMPs. According to the scientific review, only a few
EMUs have reached their restocking targets, most EMUs have partially reached
their targets and a few EMUs failed to implement the action. 
Scientific advice on
the state of the stock of European eel for 2012[9]
expressed concerns about current eel restocking practices and pointed out that
it is not clear if restocking actually contributes to ensure increased silver
eel escapement, or to sustain fishing for eel in certain EMUs. The scientific
review of the implementation of the EMPs[10]
concludes that restocking under the EMPs is not expected to have contributed to
increased silver eel escapement: its efficacy remains uncertain while evidence
of net benefit is lacking because of the generational lag time.
Scientists are also
questioning the contribution of restocking to the spawning stock and it has
been recommended "that all stocked eel should be marked and thereby
separable from wild eel in subsequent sampling".[11]
While the effects of restocking cannot be demonstrated immediately because of
the generational lag time, recently research has been undertaken in Sweden to trace stocked eels in order to verify whether they migrate in the same way as
wild-recruited eels.[12] The first results seem
to indicate that stocked eels that behave in the same way as naturally
recruited eels.
An overview of the
implementation of restocking by Member States can be found in Annex II of this
report.
Evolution
of Market Prices for Glass Eels and Illegal Trade
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 to be submitted by the Member States and
upon request of the Member State concerned, the Commission shall 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 so
far.
The Eel Regulation
(Article 7(7)) sets out an obligation for the Commission to report to the
European Parliament and to the Council before 1 July 2011 to assess the
effectiveness of restocking measures and the evolution of market prices for
glass eels. The Commission has reminded Member States of their obligation to
report glass eel prices throughout 2011 and 2012. By July 2012, one year after
the first annual deadline for reporting on glass eel prices, twelve Member
States had submitted glass eel price reports, only nine of which were complete.
Consequently, the Commission was not in a position to meet the reporting
obligations under Article 7(7) by the indicated deadline. 
A tentative evaluation
of the evolution of market prices for glass eels as reported by the Member
States is incorporated into this report. Annex I summarizes the information
provided by Member States on the prices per kilogram of glass eel paid by
restockers in various Member States. 
With the listing of
European Eel in Appendix II of CITES (and its transposition into EU Regulation
338/97), since December 2010 no trade of eel has been allowed into or out of
the European Union.[13]
Glass eels caught in EU waters cannot be traded outside the EU. Glass eel that
is not used for restocking can be directed to human consumption (mainly in Spain and France) or to aquaculture (mainly in the Netherlands and Denmark, but also Greece).
In the absence of international
trade and of accurate and sufficient information on prices in the Member
States, price comparison between traded glass eel and glass eels used for
restocking has become impossible. 
Recommendations
to improve the effectiveness of the Eel Regulation
Despite the
implementation of EMPs, the state of the stock of European eel remains critical
and a precautionary approach should be adopted until there is certain evidence
of a sustained increase in recruitment and the adult stock. Scientists constantly
advise that all humanly induced mortality (fisheries and non-fishing
anthropogenic mortality) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible and
that urgent action is needed. In line with this scientific advice, additional
measures may need to be considered to reduce current levels of humanly induced
mortality. 
The implementation of
EMPs has resulted in restrictions on fisheries, which can bring about an
increase in glass eel recruitment within a couple of years. It is therefore
necessary to assess the impact of such restrictions in the short-term. 
Non-fishing
anthropogenic mortality factors include hydropower and pumping stations,
habitat loss or degradation, pollution, diseases and parasites. More attention
should be given to management measures related to these non-fishing
anthropogenic mortality factors, the majority of which has only partially been
implemented by Member States. While the objective of the National Management
Plans is to ensure that the 40% escapement target set out in Article 2(4) of
the Regulation is met, there is not yet the
complete data available from inside or outside the EU to assess the achievement
of this objective at the scale of the EU or the whole eel stock.  
Regarding restocking,
the impact of which on the European eel stock can only be assessed in the long
term, scientific advice shows that there are concerns about current eel
restocking practices and points out that it cannot yet be proven if restocking
actually contributes to ensure increased silver eel escapement. It is therefore
necessary to put in place means to evaluate its effects and contribution to
silver eel escapement, as well as consider if the provisions on restocking in
the Eel Regulation are still adequate in light of problems with their
implementation. The services of the Commission are closely following scientific
work on this topic and will address the issue in accordance with most recent
findings. 
Finally, from an
administrative point of view, the Eel regulation puts upon Member States
significant reporting obligations, since a complete reporting of indicators is
necessary to fully assess the state of the stock and the effectiveness of the
implementation of EMPs. However, reporting has often been incomplete, whereas
there are inconsistencies in reporting and calculation of reported stock
indicators among Member States. Standardization of data table formats and
calculation methods would facilitate reporting, while enabling a better
evaluation of the effectiveness of individual management measures at EMU level.
The Commission intends
to request an external scientific review of the methodologies used by Member
States, and, where relevant, an update or a new estimation of stock indicators
regarding eel. The
objective is to obtain solid estimates of stock parameters by EMUs to reflect the stock and exploitation status in Europe, assess the impact of the Eel Regulation and consider if additional measures are
needed. On the basis of this
advice and where appropriate, the Commission will consider ways and means to
assess the effectiveness of the Eel regulation, including a possible review. 
Sources
STECF, 43th Plenary
Meeting Report, 8-12 July 2013, Copenhagen, Report EUR 26094.
ICES advice on EU
request to ICES to technically evaluate the Eel Management Plan progress,
Special Request, June 2013.
ICES, Report of the
Workshop on Evaluation of Progress of the Eel Management Plan 2013, 13-15 May
2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM/ACOM:32. 757 pp.
ICES advice for 2014,
European eel, November 2013. 
ICES, Report of the
Joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels (WGEEL), 18-22 March 2013, Sukarietta,
Spain and 4-10 September 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. 
ICES, Report of the
Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data (WKESDCF), 3 – 6
July 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM/ACOM: 62.
[1] OJ,
L 248, 22/09/2007, p. 17. The STECF opinion
referred to in article 9(2) of the Eel Regulation may be found at: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/594118/2013-07_STECF+PLEN-13-02_JRC83565.pdf
(p. 113 f.)
[2] Short summary
of conclusions of the 54th meeting of the Scientific Review Group on
trade in wild fauna and flora, 3 December 2010, https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/49ab3fc9-646b-4b35-ac42-f0333479ce24/54_summary_srg.pdf.
[3] In
accordance with Article 2(1) of the Eel Regulation, 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), whereas according to Article
7(1) of the Eel Regulation, by 31 July 2013, 60% of eels less than 12 cm in
length (glass eels) caught annually shall be reserved for restocking.
[4]
Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Cyprus, Malta.
[5]
Bulgaria, Slovenia.
[6] To
this date, only FI has not submitted a progress report. 
[7] ICES Advice in response to EU request to ICES to technically
evaluate the Eel Management Plan progress, in report of the ICES
Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 9, Section 9.3.3.3. 17 pp.
[8]
STECF, 43th Plenary Meeting Report, 8-12 July 2013, Copenhagen, Report EUR
26094
[9] ICES advice on European eel, ICES advice 2012, Book 9, Section
9.4.7: "Given the current record-low abundance of
glass eels, ICES reiterates its concern that glass eel stocking programmes are
unlikely to contribute to the recovery of the European eel stock in a
substantial manner. The overall burden of proof should be that stocking will
generate net benefits, in terms of contributions to silver eel escapement and
spawning potential. Prior to stocking, or for continuing existing stocking, a
risk assessment should be conducted, taking into account fishing, holding,
transport, post-stocking mortalities, and other factors such as disease and
parasite transfers. To facilitate stock recovery all catches of glass eel
should be used for stocking. Stocking should take place only where survival to
the silver eel stage is expected to be high and escapement conditions are good.
This means that stocking should not be used to continue fishing and stocking
should only take place where all anthropogenic mortalities are low".
[10] ICES Advice in response to EU request to ICES to technically
evaluate the Eel Management Plan progress, in report of the ICES
Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 9, Section 9.3.3.3. 17 pp.
[11] Report of the EIFAAC/ICES
Working Group on Eel (2011).
[12] Wickström
& Sjöberg, Traceability of stocked eels – the Swedish approach, Ecology
of Freshwater Fish 2013, p. 1.
[13]             COUNCIL
REGULATION (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of
wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1).
Annex I – Table: Prices per kilogram of glass eels paid by restockers in
various Member States, as reported to the Commission by the relevant national
authorities.
   ||   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
   || Comments || Weight Kg || Price €/kg || kg || €/kg || kg || €/kg || kg || €/kg || kg || €/kg 
 BE || According to FR progress report: 2010-11 – 120kg 2011-12 – 160kg || 125 || 510 || 152 || 425 || 143 || 453 || 160 || 470-520 || 206 || 399-416 
 CZ || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 671kg 2010-11 – 620kg 2011-12 – 520kg ||   ||   || 289 || 495 || 640 || 547 || 609 || 547 || 557 || 530 
 DE            || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 2492kg 2010-11 – 807kg 2011-12 – 1761kg ||   || 400-550 ||   || 400-550 ||   || 400-550 ||   || 400-550 ||   || 400-550 
 DK || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 1050kg 2010-11 – 600kg 2011-12 – 250kg ||   ||   ||   || 419 ||   || 453 ||   || 421 ||   ||   
 EE ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 63.5 || 480 || 206.5 || 625 ||   ||   
 EL ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 285 || 420 ||   ||   
 ES || Only Asturias reports prices paid for glass eels for restocking || 6 || 464 || 8 || 562 || N/A || N/A || 8 || 578 || 8 || 535 
 FR || 3.6 tons sold in FR for 400€/kg according to verbal info. No year mentioned. ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 IE || Follow ICES advice – do not believe in merits of restocking, but standing by for new scientific info ||   ||   || 0 || N/A || 0 || N/A || 0 || N/A || 0 || N/A 
 NL || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 2890kg 2010-11 – 370kg 2011-12 – 2086kg ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 450 (UK) 440 (FR) ||   || 490 (UK) 550 (FR) ||   ||   
 LT ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1047 ||   ||   ||   
 LV || Price included storage, transport and management ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 100 || 2917* ||   ||   
 PL || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 85kg 2010-11 – 85kg 2011-12 – 90kg ||   ||   ||   ||   || 85 || 650 || 85 || 500 ||   ||   
 PT || Don't restock, but sell to Spain (Figures in Italics). ||   || 270 ||   || 209 ||   || 275 ||   900 || 402 300 ||   ||   
 SE || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 870kg ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 575-650 ||   || 575-650 ||   ||   
 SK ||   || 100 || 808 || 62 || 565 || 85 || 595 || 79.5 || 600 ||   ||   
 UK || According to FR progress report: 2009-10 – 240kg 2010-11 – 1487kg 2011-12 – 400kg ||   ||   || 240 ||   || (865.1) 1401 || (476) || (948.3) 1080 || (395) ||   ||   
NB. The table contains glass eel prices
for the years 2008 to 2012. It has been difficult to obtain complete and
relevant data from the Member States, in spite of numerous calls from the
Commission to submit such data.
Annex  II – Implementation of Restocking Measures
BE: In 2011 in Wallonia, 130,000
individuals (40 kg) of glass eels were stocked in some priority rivers such as
Ourthe (12 kg) Amblève (8 kg), Aisne (1 kg), Méhaigne (2 kg) in the Lesse and
the Meuse basin and the Dyle (1 kg) in Scheldt basin. In 2012 50 kg were
restocked in rivers of the Meuse basin: Vesdre (6 kg), Haute Lesse (6 kg),
Viroin (4 kg), Haute Sambre (6 kg), Biesme (2 kg), Biesmelle (2 kg), Hantes (2
kg), Thure (2 kg), Eau d'Heure (4 kg), Eau d'Heure Lakes (2kg). Restocking will
continue over the next 4 years.
CZ: Fish stocking takes place in keeping with the management plan.
Fish stocking is carried out in areas allowing for eel escaping into the sea.
They include the Elbe River Basin, emptying into the North Sea, (problem-free
migration), and the Odra River Basin, emptying into the Baltic Sea on the
Polish coast, (here certain obstacles exist preventing eel from readily
escaping into the Baltic Sea). For each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 950 kg
of glass eel are planned to be imported into the Czech Republic. Of these, 700
kg will be paid for via the Fisheries Operational Programme and 250 kg will be
paid from private funds of the Czech Fishing Union.
DK: Restocking has been fully implemented as described within the
Danish EMP. The amount of restocked eel in freshwater has increased from year
2010, where funds from the European Fisheries Fund were granted. In the Danish
EMP the amount of eel to be restocked was proposed to be 0.8 million eels. The
actual amount of restocked eels has increased to 1.2-1.4 million eels in 2010
and 2011.
EE: The main proposal of EMP was to increase annual stocking amount
of eel in the water bodies of Narva River Basin and to enhance the stocking
with additional financing using European Fisheries Fund (EFF). Since 2011
stocking of eel has been additionally supported by EFF. Without stocking, a
huge area with a high production potential would be cut off.
EL: The planned measure to restock 10% of the glass eel imported
from other EU Member States (glass eel recruitment in Greece is very low) was not implemented fully due to financial constraints. 
ES: All those autonomous communities
which had restocking in their plans have executed restocking, albeit to varying
extents. Asturias, Cantabria, Cataluña and Andalucía have fully implemented their restocking plans, while Valencia has only restocked 42% of what was foreseen. The Basque Country will only carry
out delayed restocking.
FR: 45% of the catch quota of glass eel for the 2011-2012 fishing
season was allocated to restocking within the EU. 5-10% of the catch was
foreseen to be restocked within France, but the restocking executed for each
fishing season between 2009 and 2012 is much lower than planned:
2009-2010: 0.33% 
2010-2011: 1.69%
2011-2012: 8.34%
The reasons for failing to meet the
restocking targets are late implementation of the French eel plans in 2009,
detection of EVEX virus in glass eel, doubts about the ability to colonise
certain areas, administrative and financial difficulties, and pollution of some
target restocking areas. Restocking is being improved each year via acquired
experience regarding suitable restocking locations and sanitary considerations.
Glass eel mortality within 15 days after
restocking ranges from 6 to 72%, depending on the area. Survival within the
first 6 months could not be determined accurately. In two of the restocking
areas it was found that "at least some" eel survive. In the other two
restocking areas no marked (restocked) eels were recaptured, therefore making
it impossible to draw any conclusion about their survival rate.
LT: Stocking is one of the most important measures of the plan. The
intensity of stocking depends on the availability of glass eel. It is possible
to perform stocking with various eel life stages. The recommended stocking
density for the Lithuanian water bodies is 100 glass eel individuals or 25
individuals of eel less than 20 cm in length per hectare.
Over the last decade, stocking has been
performed occasionally using glass fry or cultured material with body weights
of several grams. Despite the difficulties to start implementation of the EMP,
the Fisheries service started to implement actions on it in the middle of the
year 2011. 134 000 individuals of European eel less than 20 cm in length
(approx. 10-11 g) were bought. In the period of two months (July-August, 2011)
all the amount of acquired eels was stocked in 22 lakes of Lithuania.
NL: Restocking was foreseen to start in 2009, but started as of
2010. Restocking is done with pre-grown eels at least 28 cm long. The
effectiveness of the current glass eel stocking program is unclear. Impact of
the stocking program in the period 2009-2011 will not be visible until the
glass eel has grown past 30 cm in length and may be captured in fisheries and
eel monitoring programmes. Therefore it falls outside the period currently
being evaluated. Introducing glass eel from France, Spain and England into Dutch waters will undoubtedly increase the biomass of silver eel in Dutch
waters. 
Activities during the period 2009-2012:
Restocked glass eel and pre-grown eel
 Restocking Quantities || 2010 || 2011 
 glass eel || 763 || 164 
 pre-grown eel || 0 || 1395 
PL: The intensity of stocking depends on the availability of glass
eel in May and June. The recommended stocking amount for the Oder basin is 6
million individuals and for the Vistula basin it is 7 million. It is possible
to stock with eel of various sizes. Over the last two decades, stocking has
been performed using pre-grown eel weighing several grams to several hundred
grams.
Results of studies performed by the
Department of Fisheries Bioeconomics IFI indicate that in Poland there are at least ten large companies importing fingerlings for stocking purposes
and one producer who rears
imported glass eels and is linked to the Polish Angling Association in
Suwałki. Most of the importers
obtain fingerlings from aquaculture companies located in Denmark, Holland,
Germany, Sweden, Lithuania, and France where commercial fattening of eel is
performed on various scales, most of the fish weighing 100 to 1,000 grams each.
PT: The report does not describe how the obligation to reserve 60%
of glass eel caught in the Minho (the only place in Portugal where glass eel
fishing is permitted) is met. Potential locations for restocking have been
identified. However, Portugal would like restocking to be reconsidered,
especially as its contribution to recovery is doubtful, and also because it is
financially and technically difficult to sustain. 
SE: Increased restocking will not contribute to increased levels of
silver eel escapement until 14 years (according to the EMP) after stocking.
Glass eel are purchased from France and/or England, and are always quarantined
to guarantee that no disease is introduced to Swedish waters. The targets in
the EMP to increase the amount of restocking have been fulfilled.
In 2008, the amount of restocked glass
eels in Sweden was 1-1.2 million individuals. The short-term target in the EMP
was set to double this figure (2-2.5 million individuals) to 2010. This target
was reached in the first year of implementation of the EMP. In 2010 and 2011,
restocking on the East Coast ceased almost completely; restocking inland waters
was focused in westward draining lakes,
especially Lake Vänern and Lake Vombsjön to avoid future anthropogenic impacts on the stocking programme (i.e. fishing and
hydropower mortality). 
Given that restocking turned out to be
such an important part of the EMPs and given the current low abundance of glass
eel it has to be ensured that any restocking generates net benefits to the
breeding population, and three basic conditions have to be fulfilled:
- There must be a surplus of glass eel where
they are caught,
- There should be little or no
anthropogenic mortality where they are released, and
- There should be a high probability
that restocked eel can migrate to the Sargasso Sea (Several studies have been
undertaken to track restocked eel migrating towards their spawning grounds, but
it has not yet been adequately demonstrated that those eel are able to
successfully complete the migration).