The latest meeting (see previous news) of the EU’s Tacs and Quotas Committee once again targeted eel fishing, under unprecedented pressure from environmental NGOs who wanted to make eel fishing responsible for all the ills suffered by this species.

Once again, decisions are being taken without a comprehensive analysis of the existing evidence both on the real impact of fishing and on the sometimes irreversible degradation of the habitats of this species. We prefer to refer to an opinion from the WGEEL of the ICES, which is in fact a lack of opinion for reasons of convenience: it is easier to control and stop fishing than to re-naturalise eel habitats or minimise the impact of the many hydroelectric power stations that have fragmented continental aquatic ecosystems since at least the beginning of the 20th century.

The EU Commission, like many NGOs, relies on this expertise without bothering to consider what is said in the national reports submitted to and archived by ICES, which take a broader perspective than just fisheries and provide a more factual analysis of the effects and impacts of various kinds that have been affecting this resource for more than a century.

Deliberately ignoring the fact that the eel can recover without an effort to protect the remaining wetlands and restore ecological continuity in a large part of its range is a case of total incompetence or culpable ignorance.

To say that by simply stopping fishing we will return in a short space of time to a situation like the one we knew, even in the 1970s, is truly shocking from NGOs who claim to be defending sustainable development and restoring aquatic biodiversity that many land-based uses have greatly reduced.

The French eel management plan submitted to the Commission under Regulation 1100/2007 had the following objectives:

1. reduction of mortality by marine and freshwater fishing by 30% in 2012, and by 60% in 2015;
2. reducing mortality by other factors than fishing  by 30% from 2012, 50% from 2015 and 75% from 2018;
3. increase in the proportion of glass eels caught and reserved for restocking (60% by 1 July 2013).

For fishing, this has been done, and the number of fishermen has fallen sharply in France and across Europe, with some countries having to ban fishing of the species , and restrictions on fishing periods more than substantial for the others countries, as shown by the most recent constraints imposed by the Commission. For uses other than fishing, it’s a fiasco!

The environmental NGOs that claim to be defending this species in the name of sustainable development, which is sustainable in name only, are not even offended by this, and are in more of a hurry to pursue legal action against eel fishers than environmental protection.

Meanwhile, the aquatic environments of continental, estuarine and coastal ecosystems are continuing to deteriorate, with serious social and economic consequences for all those who need a high-quality, highly productive environment to be able to continue their activities. The contamination of coastal areas by overflowing sewage systems due to the inadequacy of separate sewer systems has led to the contamination of oysters and a ban on their sale for the festive season in 2023 and early 2024, demonstrating, if proof were needed, the inability of our managers to monitor the biological and chemical quality of our aquatic environments.

Worse still, a reading of the national reports submitted to ICES by the WGEEL shows that a large proportion of eel habitats have in fact been closed down. In France, the definition of priority areas for eel seems to be a de facto recognition of that situation.

In many countries in the European eel’s area of colonisation, the fact that many hydroelectric dams cannot be crossed means that these habitats located upstream are considered to be lost forever, leaving the way clear for all kinds of developments, particularly in the name of energy production that is only green in name.

The 2004 Environmental Charter introduces 3 major principles: The precautionary principle, which assesses the risk and the probability of its occurrence; the prevention principle, which consists of anticipating and taking measures to avoid a known risk; and the polluter-pays principle, adopted by the OECD in 1972 and based on the fact that the costs resulting from pollution prevention and reduction measures must be paid by the polluter; the polluter being an actor who directly or indirectly degrades the environment or creates conditions leading to its degradation.

As far as risk assessment is concerned, it is defined, until there is proof to the contrary, by the eel’s classification on the IUCN red list in the “critically endangered” category. Even if this classification may seem pessimistic, it gives a clear idea of the major risk incurred not only by the species, but also by those who depend on its exploitation.

The principle of prevention must now be applied by avoiding or reducing as far as possible the harmful effects of human activities on the environment. The evaluation of the management plans shows that this has been done for fishing (see the Van-Ruyssen report of 2023), but not sufficiently for known pressures whose harmful effects are listed by the ICES Eel Working Group and the national reports on eel submitted to this body. For example, the impacts of dams, hydroelectric power generation, pumping, the loss and/or degradation of a large proportion of the species’ habitats, and the biological and chemical degradation of continental, estuarine and coastal waters have not been sufficiently mitigated. Consequently, the objectives of minimising the ecological footprint of uses other than fishing as defined at the outset of the management plans have not been achieved.

The polluter-pays principle must in fine be applied in all its rigour. While the professional fishing sector has been severely restricted economically and socially by paying a heavy price, this has not been the case for other uses whose pressure is recognised as strong by all the countries characterised by the presence of the European eel in their aquatic ecosystems: hydroelectricity production, use of water for irrigation purposes, industrial and urban activities that physically or chemically degrade aquatic ecosystems, and so on. In the name of this principle, the various stakeholders involved must now cover their impacts financially, either by re-naturalising existing potential habitats or by compensating for the losses caused by the over-intensive use of water resources through active restoration measures: restocking, facilitation of eel migration downstream or upstream of dams. It has to be said that, with the exception of fishing, this principle is often flouted by other users of water resources and aquatic environments.