COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel
Date: 2020-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing controls, fishing rights, freshwater fish, protected species, protection of animal life

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.2.2020  SWD(2020) 36 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel           {SWD(2020) 35 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) stock is in a critical state, with recruitment at an all-time 
low and exploitation of the stock currently unsustainable. Considering this, the Commission 
was  requested  in  the  context  of  the  2017  December  Council  to  assess  the  current  measures 
under the Regulation No 1100/20071 (hereinafter ‘Eel Regulation’) and its contribution to the 
recovery of the stock. 

The Commission first  attempted to  assess the implementation  of the Eel Management Plans 
(EMPs) under the Eel Regulation in 20142 but the results 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. 

Based on an evaluation external study and other relevant sources, this staff working document 
looks at the implementation of the Eel Regulation by examining its effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance, coherence, EU added value and sustainability. The results of this evaluation help to 
its 
determine  whether 
implementation needs to be improved and/or other actions are needed. 

to  be  reviewed  and/or  whether 

the  Eel  Regulation  needs 

State of play of the implementation of the Eel Management Plans 

The Eel Regulation required Member States (MS) to establish EMPs for their river basins that 
constitute significant eel habitats for implementation from 2009 onwards. Nineteen MSs have 
developed EMPs3, covering almost 90 Eel Management Units and around 1,880 actions. Some 
MS were exempted from  preparing the EMP4. SI, HR and BU (for its river systems  outside 
the Black Sea) have not prepared their EMP. One transboundary EMP has been established5. 

The  reporting  by  MS  on  the  EMP  implementation  in  2012,  2015  and  2018  was  incomplete 
with some countries not submitting the reports or providing incomplete information. There are 
inconsistencies in reporting and calculation of reported stock indicators among MS. 

Despite disparities among MS regarding the implementation of EMPs, it can be observed that 
overall: 

  The  silver  eel  escapement  is  still  well  below  the  target  of  40%  biomass  that  would 

have existed if no anthropogenic influence had impacted the stock. 

  Some progress has been made in reducing fishing effort, but it has also risen in some 
MS.  Although  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 glass eel mortality through illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing 
in EU waters. 

1 Council  Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing  measures for the recovery of the 

stock of European eel, OJ L 248, 22.9.2007, p. 17–23 

2  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 

3 BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, ES, SE, UK 
4 MS exempted from preparing the EMP: CY, MT, AT, RO, SK and HU. The Black Sea and the river systems 

connected do not constitute a natural eel habitat for the purposes of the Eel Regulation. 

5 ES / PT Transboundary Plan for Minho River, approved by the Commission 

1 

 
 
                                                           
  Whilst  restocking  works  in  some  MS,  not  all  have  achieved  their  60%  restocking 

targets. 

  Non-fisheries  related  anthropogenic  mortality  has  not  declined  significantly  over  the 
last decade. This has received insufficient focus in the EMPs and related actions. 

Evolution of market prices for glass eels 

MS are required to report glass eel prices annually, but these are incomplete. Prices crashed in 
2014  (due  to  over-supply)  but  have  recovered  since.  Many  MS  fund  glass  eel  stocking 
through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 

Main findings of the evaluation  

Relevance 
The Eel Regulation is still relevant and basically fit for purpose as an instrument to help the 
European eel stock to recover. It ensures that management can be applied at all eel life stages 
and allows to address both fisheries and non-fisheries related anthropogenic impacts. 

Effectiveness 
The Eel Regulation has been effective in that the key EU MS have developed comprehensive 
EMPs. However, the escapement levels are still well below at least 40% of silver eel biomass 
target. In terms of ensuring the recovery of the European eel, the Regulation’s effectiveness is 
still far from certain. However, it is widely recognised that the recovery of the European eel 
will take many decades, given the long life-span of the species. 

The long-term use of restocking as a key conservation measure is questioned, other than as a 
short term emergency measure until greater natural migration in freshwater is possible, given 
its uncertain  contribution to spawner escapement and subsequent recruitment, as well as the 
risks involved (e.g. disease introduction, as well as mortality from poor handling). 

The  control  of  eels  fisheries  is  hindered  by  some  shortcoming  of  the  EU  control  system  in 
relation  to  monitoring  and  control  tools  for  fishing  vessels  of  less  than  10  m.  The  intra-EU 
trade, including that of glass eels for restocking in another MS, is not fully monitored and the 
full traceability of eel traded between MS is  yet to be established. Also, the monitoring and 
control of recreational eel fisheries appear to be incomplete. 

Efficiency 
A monetarised analysis of the cost-benefits of the Eel Regulation is impossible to provide at 
this stage, since MS do not quantify the direct costs of implementing the Regulation. There is 
scope for improving the efficiency of the reporting by MS. 

Coherence 
Although  the  Eel  Regulation  is  coherent  with  a  number  of  EU  legislation  and  international 
agreements6,  there  is  scope  to  improve  connectivity  between  the  River  Basin  Management 
Plans under the Water Framework Directive and the Eel Management Plans.  

6  Highly  relevant  are:  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (policy  framework),  Water  Framework  Directive  and  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (for eel-related habitat and environmental protection), Habitats Directive (for 
the conservation of eel-related habitats), CITES (trade related issues) and CMS (international cooperation). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EU added-value 
The  Eel  Regulation  has  provided  a  strong  catalyst  for  MS  actions  to  address  the  issues 
affecting the recovery of the European eel. It has also stimulated other EU-funded actions to 
support the recovery of the stock and has helped to raise awareness of the need for conserving 
and managing European eels throughout its range. 

Sustainability 
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. 

Overall conclusion 
The  adoption  of  the  Eel  Regulation  has  been  an  important  milestone  in  the  long  process 
towards  the  recovery  of  the  European  eel.  It  remains  as  relevant  now  as  it  was  in  2009. 
Nevertheless,  despite  notable  progress  in  reducing  fishing  effort  and  a  concerted  attempt  to 
develop  a  pan-EU  management  framework,  the  status  of  eel  remains  critical.  The 
Regulation’s success in ensuring the recovery of the European eel is still far from certain, as it 
is  widely  recognised that  the recovery of the European eel will take many decades.    In this 
respect, further ambition is needed to implement the Regulation with a greater focus on non-
fisheries related measures. 

3