Solutions exist, but administration needs the courage to implement them.
AFPMAR had already strongly criticized the authoritarian nature of the European Commission’s opening periods for eel fishing, which are more than limited in time, leaving few opportunities for professional fishermen, particularly those fishing for glass eels, to practice their activity and support their companies (see Un bien mauvais signal pour l’Europe: “Encore une posture totalement technocratique et sectorielle de la Commission Européenne sur la pêche de l’anguille” – Anguille Responsable).
At the National Eel Committee meeting on June 25, 2024, the DGAMPA (General Directorate for Maritime Affairs, Fisheries and Aquaculture) reported to the European Commission on the actions implemented under the French Eel Management Plan.
It has to be said that, despite having achieved the objectives assigned to it: a sharp reduction in fishing effort, traceability of production, participation in the management of the species, the professional fishing industry is subject to increasingly severe constraints on fishing periods, which are limited in a caricatured way, and to increasingly thorough administrative controls.
On the other hand, little or very slow progress has been made on the other constraints that are so vital to the species’ survival: ecological continuity has been only marginally improved, the impact of obstacles and habitat loss has not been assessed, if at all, and the degradation of estuarine and continental environments has not been taken into account. No implementation of the “polluter pays” principle, particularly for impediments to lateral and longitudinal ecological continuity.
In this report, professional fishing still appears as an activity to be limited or eradicated, since the constraints on its practice are so severe as, indeed, to be incompatible with the economic sustainability of many fishing businesses (particularly those of young people who have not yet amortized their equipment). As we keep saying, fishing is a convenient adjustment variable for an administration overwhelmed by the complexity of the issue.
Indeed, without any evaluation of the implementation of eel management plans in Europe, and despite the European Parliament’s report on the implementation of eel management plans, known as the “Van-Ruyssen report” (see Finally, a little more coherence and global vision from the European Union on eel – Anguille Responsable ) in its regulation 2024/257 article 13, the European Commission lays down the following “regulatory implausibilities” for glass eel fishing on the Atlantic coast (glass eel fishing is banned in the Mediterranean): “6-month closure to cover the main migration period”.
Clearly, with such a measure, the French glass eel fishery would have been wiped out, and with it the entire eel industry in Europe, since without glass eel fishing there would be no possibility of developing eel farming.
After discussion, a derogation was obtained: “possibility of opening by derogation 30 days during the migration period for consumption and restocking plus 50 additional days but only for restocking”.
We must not be fooled by the EU’s acceptance of this derogation. It’s a sword of Damocles hanging over small-scale artisanal fishing, put in place to ensure the survival of the German and Dutch eel farming industries, whose lobbying of the European Commission is intense.
For the French fishing industry, it’s nothing more than a lifeline, further undermining the sustainability of our operations. Successful fishing depends on a number of things: the skill of the fisherman, the presence of the fish in the area, its behavior according to hydro-climatic conditions (i.e. its catchability) and the presence of a demand market (particularly for the restocking market). There are many uncertainties and unknowns that the fisherman can face up to, provided that the fishing window is of a realistic size, which it obviously isn’t with these new, more than restrictive regulations, which come on top of existing quotas.
What’s more, the derogatory extension of the fishing season solely for the restocking market, which is not very dynamic in Europe, is a lure that will further drive down the price of glass eels in Europe.
The future is thus more than uncertain for our profession, and particularly for the young people who have just set up in business and who are the vital link in the continuity of this small-scale fishing activity, a UNESCO World Heritage site. On the one hand, we are increasingly prevented from practicing our trade, while on the other, we are forced to sell to the highest bidder, depriving ourselves of a very buoyant Asian market for our consumption quota, and restricting ourselves to a more than limited European market.
Glass eel fishing has always been at the core of the estuarine and continental fishing economy. Unjustified measures and restrictions on fishing activities will obviously cause many of the fishing companies concerned to shift their activities to other species, which are already highly targeted in coastal areas, before sinking for ever. This is not to say that fishing time should not be controlled, but rather that it should be adjusted to enable those involved in the industry to better absorb these social and economic constraints. For example, we can’t give professional fishermen an ultimatum by giving them just a few days to choose between fishing windows that aren’t wide enough to accommodate the environmental hazards of this activity.
What’s more, if the European and national authorities want to come up with credible solutions that take into account both the resource protection aspect and the social and economic sustainability of the activity, we can’t act solely on the “exploitation intensity” parameter, but also on the “value of the production generated” parameter. In short, “fish less” but “value more”. These two parameters must be taken into account simultaneously by the management authorities if we are to save the fishing industry for this species.
Solutions do exist, as we have already said, within a framework of responsible management of this resource. European, CITES and national regulations make it possible, all that’s needed is the political will:
1 – In accordance with regulation 1100/2007 – article 7, paragraph 7 concerning “restocking measures” which states: “In the event of a significant fall in the average market prices of eels intended for restocking, compared to those of eels used for other purposes, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission. The Commission, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, shall take the necessary measures to deal with the situation, which may include a temporary reduction in the percentages referred to in paragraph 2”. This is currently the case, as the French report shows. Hence the request to modify the distribution key as it was at the origin of the management plans: 60% for consumption and 40% for restocking.
2 – Since June 2007, eels have been listed in Appendix II of CITES (International Trade in Endangered Species). Since 2010, eels not produced or fished in Europe may no longer be exported or imported outside the EU without an export certificate signed by the scientific authority of the requesting country.
However, CITES does not prohibit trade outside the distribution area, provided that :
a- There is a management plan approved by the European management authorities in accordance with regulation 1100/2007 – this is the case;
b- The species is fished or produced in accordance with the laws in force concerning the protection of flora and fauna in the state concerned – this is the case;
c- That such export is not to the detriment of the species’ survival – this is the case, since French regulations provide for a consumption sub-quota intended for consumption and not for release.
This authorization would enable the French glass eel fishery to cushion the lack of dynamism in the European market controlled by the breeding sector, and to set a social and economic horizon a little more serene than the one currently being prepared.
3 – French regulations were the only ones to provide for quota-based management, and the operators have complied with draconian declaration conditions that ensure the unfailing traceability of production in this sector. It is therefore entirely possible, at the sole wish of the French party, to include a sub-quota for exports outside the EU in the consumption quota, which would give a breath of fresh air to the small-scale fishing companies concerned by this resource, limit illegal trafficking, which has increased following the EU’s request not to allow eel to be exported outside the EU, and revitalize a market whose only lucrative outlet remains consumption.
To reduce the size of the fishing fleet even further, as some people are advocating, would not only send the wrong signal to our decision-makers, but would also leave the field even more open to uses that exploit aquatic ecosystems only for the water they contain, and not for the biodiversity they generate.
The proposed solutions are realistic in the current context of management and restoration of this species, whose habitats have been damaged by multiple uses. Failure to implement them would further reinforce the small-scale fishing sector’s feeling that its future is of little interest to those who govern us, and that the ecological transition remains a mere intellectual exercise, rather than a long-awaited necessity for those who make their living from the productivity of natural environments.