On Saturday 26 October 2024, AFPMAR held its first general meeting since its creation in 2023, in both in-person and video-conference sessions at two locations: Sainte-Marie de Gosse (Landes) and La Roche-sur-Yon (Vendée).
39 professional river and sea fishers attended the two locations, including Philippe Micheau (President of the CMEA – Commission pour le Milieu Estuarien et les Poissons Amphihalins); Didier Macé (President of CONAPPED – Comité National des Pêcheurs Professionnels en Eau Douce) and Eric Blanc (President of ARA France – Association pour le Repeuplement de l’Anguille en France). In addition to the professional fishermen, the two fish traders affiliated to AFPMAR were present (Benoit Chambon – Civelle Durable and Ibai Aguirrebarrena – Société Aguirrebarrena).
The purpose of the AGM was to provide an update on the AFPMAR association and the ‘Responsible Eel’ brand, as well as to present and approve the new team put in place following the resignation of Eric Blanc, the AFPMAR’s first president, following his appointment as head of the ARA France association (he did not wish to hold multiple mandates).
(click on the title to display the presentati)
President Alex Thiburce welcomed the attending members. He recalled the general framework of this initiative: to structure a collective brand that would enable the efforts made by the eel industry to be recognised, to communicate on facts that are true and not distorted or truncated by numerous associations whose aim is more to make noise about environmental issues than to fight for the management and protection of the species, and finally to unite to set up a brand that is recognised in Europe and that will enable the French eel industry to get a fair price for the efforts made under EU regulation 1100/2007.
A brand rather than a label
AFPMAR means ‘Association Française pour la Promotion de la Marque Anguille Responsable’ (French Association for the Promotion of the Responsible Eel Brand).
The collective brand was chosen for two main reasons. The first, because it is so easy to implement, and the brand is the preferred choice for many fish products.
The second is the status of the species on the IUCN red list, which does not sit well with a so-called sustainable fishing label. In addition, the creation of a label is linked to the implementation of a particularly cumbersome and expensive certification process, beyond the association’s means.
Responsible rather than Sustainable
In fisheries terminology, the sustainability of a fishing activity means exploiting the species when it is at its maximum production capacity. It is obvious, and professional fishermen were among the first to point this out, that the species is not in a situation that can be described as sustainable in the fisheries sense of the term.
It is for this reason that the brand claims an activity that is responsible rather than sustainable, i.e. an activity that minimises its ecological footprint both on the species and on the habitats necessary for the production of the European eel.
In this way, the ‘Responsible Eel Brand’ and its members are part of a framework of responsibility characterised by :
- Control of catches and fishing effort according to an overall quota defined by a scientific committee independent of the industry;
- Strict control of fishing activity and first sale by State services according to a detailed and computerised procedure;
- Control of the sanitary quality of products in the fish-trading sector by issuing TRACES files validated by the health services and by the traceability of products and transactions, in particular as regards the distinction between glass eels for consumption and for restocking, verified by the environmental police services;
- By improving product quality by adopting the charter of good practice published by the CNPMEM, CONAPPED and WWF France;
- By taking part, in association with professional organisations and ARA France, in a network of observations on changes in the eel population and its habitats;
- By taking part in the management and active restoration of the species through repopulation or within professional structures.
The eel fishing and trade sector: the big loser
Since the implementation of EU Regulation 1100/2007 on the restoration of eel stocks, there has been no doubt about it: the fishing and fish trade sector in France, but also in Europe, is the big loser. The polluter pays principle has in no way been applied, and the fishing industry continues to be the adjustment variable for the inability of our national and European managers to take the global environmental approach that is so crucial to restoring this type of species.
It is estimated that the glass eel fishery has lost 400% of its value since the introduction of Regulation 1100/2007 and, mainly, as a result of the EU’s incomprehensible refusal to allow glass eels caught under the consumption quota to be exported outside Europe, in particular to the Asian market. The fall in the number of companies (60% since the introduction of the regulation) explains part of the reduction in the overall value of the fishery, but we note that the average turnover per company for glass eel fell from 42,000 euros to 25,400 before and after the introduction of the regulation (see details in the presentation).
This situation is mainly due to a very unpromising restocking market in Europe, which is increasingly under the control of the eel farming industry (production of eels for restocking at a price 7 to 10 times higher than that of glass eels, with a quasi constant volume of subsidies). The average price per kg of glass eel ( from fisherman), which was €490 between 1996 and 2007, will fall to €295 between 2008 and 2023.
A little less technocracy for a little more democracy.
The Van-Ruyssen report of November 2023 on the evaluation of the implementation of EU Regulation 1100/2007 stated that the integrated approach was necessary to restore eel and that this regulation was the best management tool. The MEPs also noted that the fisheries sector had achieved the objectives assigned to it, while the efforts made to reduce the footprint of other uses were far from sufficient.
One month later, and taking into account the ICES’ failure to assess this resource (inability to assess this resource and therefore application of the precautionary approach: all fishing closed), the Fisheries Commission, at its TACs and Quotas meeting in December 2023, took a measure that definitively sealed the future of fishing by introducing, without any assessment of the management plans, a 6-month ban during the main period of glass eel upstream in the maritime zone! Following intense discussions, our professional representatives obtained derogations that allowed fishing during a small part of this period: 30 days for the consumption quota and a further 50 days solely for a restocking market that was not very profitable. Unfortunately, for the first time, marine fishermen were unable to consume a large part of the restocking quota because of severe restrictions on fishing time. It is clear that these new constraints on fishing time, combined with a consumption/restocking allocation key that is not adapted to European market demand and a ban on exports to the Asian market, will ultimately doom the viability of this activity, which concerns a quarter of the small-scale coastal and estuarine fishing fleet in the Bay of Biscay.
The main management measure for this kind of migratory species, subject to the constraint of numerous activities that can be controlled, consisting solely of reducing the number of vessels in a sector already seriously affected by the degradation of aquatic environments for which it bears no responsibility, is ineffective for this type of species.
One solution: fish less and add value better
AFPMAR is calling for the existing regulations to be applied so that the profits from the eel industry can finally be fairly distributed between the fishing and farming sectors.
First of all, the consumption/restocking allocation key must be changed, given the very tight market for restocking glass eels in Europe, with supply exceeding demand for glass eels, which has been progressively reduced by the use of farmed eels.
Given the existing regulations in France and Europe, with the definition of a quota of glass eels to be caught, to which the distribution key provided for in EU regulation 1100/2007 is applied: 40% for direct consumption or the farming sector and 60% for restocking, reducing the supply of glass eels for restocking would mean sharply reducing the possibilities of catching glass eels for consumption, the price of which is much higher than that of the glass eels for restocking, as shown in the figure below.
De ce fait l’AFPMAR demande l’application de l’article 7, § 6 du règlement UE 1100/2007: ” En cas de baisse importante des prix moyens du marché des anguilles destinées au repeuplement, par rapport à ceux des anguilles utilisées à d’autres fins, l’État membre concerné en informe la Commission. Celle-ci, conformément à la procédure visée à l’article 30, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) no 2371/2002, prend les mesures nécessaires pour faire face à la situation, mesures qui peuvent inclure une réduction temporaire des pourcentages visés au paragraphe 2″.
Une lettre sera adressée au Président du CNPMEM pour transmission au Ministre de la Pêche pour que la demande de changement de la clé de répartition soit faite auprès de l’Union Européenne comme indiqué par l’article 7 du règlement.
Didier Macé, président du CONAPPED demande s’il peut s’associer à cette demande. Il lui est répondu que cela ne peut que renforcer la portée de cette lettre. L’association peut se faire de deux manières soit une transmission CNPMEM/CONAPPED vers le ministre, soit une lettre au ministre pour appuyer cette demande avec copie au Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et de la Transition et de la Cohésion des Territoires.
Peu après de la mise en place de la règlementation UE 1100/2007, l’interdiction d’export hors UE a été demandée aux Etats Membres par l’Union Européenne pour des raisons non expliquées.
Ainsi après la saison 2010, les pêcheurs professionnels français n’ont pu exporter leurs civelles issues du sous-quota de consommation vers les marchés asiatiques, les plus rémunérateurs.
Il faut bien comprendre que la décision d’export sous certificat CITES hors de l’aire de répartition est de la compétence de l’Etat Membre au vu d’un rapport d’expertise effectué par l’autorité scientifique française qui est le MNHN (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle). A notre connaissance, deux rapports 2013 et 2014 ont été fournis à l’administration française. Le dernier évoque l’impossibilité de statuer sur un éventuel effet non dommageable du transport de l’espèce hors de sa zone de répartition. Le rapport fait état dans un seul paragraphe de l’impossibilité d’évaluer cet impact au motif que : « Les données actuelles ne nous permettent pas de statuer sur les réelles conséquences pour l’espèce d’une autorisation ou d’une interdiction des échanges dans la mesure où d’une part les prélèvements licites sont autorisés et définis par chaque plan de gestion et, d’autre part, des prélèvements illicites sont effectués. » (§ 4 du rapport d’expertise coordonné par le MNHN suite à une demande de la Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture en 2014).
Pourtant, la décision est simple à prendre et l’effet dommageable d’un export hors de la zone de répartition sur le sous-quota de consommation au plan biologique relève du simple bon sens : que la civelle de consommation soit utilisée pour l’élevage en Europe ou en Chine, le résultat biologiquement sera le même, il n’y aura pas pour ces juvéniles de participation à la reproduction ! Par contre, au plan social et économique, compte-tenu des nombreuses contraintes subies par le secteur de la pêche y compris sur un quasi blocage des prix par la filière d’élevage le résultat ne sera pas le même. Les tableaux ci-dessous simulent ce que serait la situation économique avec un quota de 55 tonnes, une clé de répartition de 60% pour la consommation, de 40% pour le repeuplement et un sous quota de 15 tonnes d’export hors UE pris sur le quota de consommation défini à 33 tonnes.
Export of a species listed in Appendix II of CITES is authorised under certain conditions in order to obtain a certificate of non-detrimental Finfings under a CITES mandate.
- Fishing must be legally authorised and, of course, regulated. This is the case for glass eel, fishing for which is authorised at European level. In France, this activity is reserved for licensed marine and inshore fishermen. The overall volume is defined by a Scientific Committee independent of the fishing industry and validated by a Scientific and Economic Committee. The fishing period is defined in accordance with the directives of the EU Fisheries Commission. The gear used complies with the directives issued by the authorities, and all licensed professionals sign up to a Charter of Good Practice, which significantly reduces post-fishing mortality;
- A management plan must have been approved at European level. This is the case in France, where the plan was submitted to and approved by the EU in 2009;
- Transport outside the EU must not jeopardise the future of the species. This is the case since the glass eel exported is only taken from the consumption quota and not from an additional consumption quota, and that mortality during transport is minimised, which is the case following the reduction in mortality after fishing and the development of transport techniques that enable glass eels to be kept alive for air transport.
- Finally, it should be noted that the suspension of exports outside the EU has not had the effect of reducing illegal trafficking, quite the contrary.
The fishing industry is well aware that the European eel sector forms a whole and that neither the farming nor the restocking sectors should be jeopardised by an excessively high glass eel price. This is why we are proposing a sub-quota of 15 tonnes for exports outside the EU. This will have the effect of boosting the fishing industry’s economy by reducing its dependence on the farming sector, but without jeopardising the supply of glass eels needed by the eel industry in Europe.
As the figure below, taken from a SEG slide, shows, the farming sector has more than enough capacity to absorb this increase in the price of glass eels from fisherman.
EUROPOL’s estimate of the volume of glass eels is somewhat dubious, given the difficulty of holding large quantities of glass eels (let alone catching them!) and then processing them for transport to Asia. Furthermore, the publication ‘Reviewing the trade in glass-eels Anguilla spp.’ by H. Shiraishi in the journal TRAFFIC (Traffic Bulletin, Vol. 32, 1, 2020 – Figure 2) indicates that imports to East Asia from the EU and North Africa are well below 5 tonnes a year, with the exception of 2016 when they exceeded 5 tonnes. Unless we doubt Chinese customs statistics, we do not see, in the information reported by the SEG, what allows EUROPOL to estimate the volume of illegal traffic at 100 tonnes.
A letter will be sent to the President of the CNPMEM for transmission to the Director General of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs for a request for a certificate of non-detrimental findings from the MNHN with the following question: is the export of part of the consumption quota outside the EU more damaging to the survival of the species than no export at all, as is currently the case.
Approval of the enlarged bureau
The members of the extended executive committee (strict executive committee and area administrators) were unanimously confirmed in their positions.
List of the enlarged bureau:
- Président Alex Thiburce – Marin pêcheur à l’Aiguillon La Presqu’île
- Vice-président Eddy Janin – Pêcheur fluvial à Mouzillon
- Vice-président Christopher Quemener – Marin pêcheur à Batz – sur – Mer
- Vice-président Ibai Aguirrebarrena – Mareyeur à Saint-Vincent de Tyrosse
- Trésorier Olivier Jeannots – Pêcheur fluvial à Sainte – Marie de Gosse
- Administrateur – Vincent Bernard – Marin Pêcheur à Charron
- Administrateur – Marcel Vautier – Marin Pêcheur Normandie
- Administrateur – Benoit Chambon Mareyeur à Sainte -Gemme
- Administrateur – Cédric Othéguy – Pêcheur fluvial bassin Adour.
- Administrateur – Fabrice Montassine – Marin pêcheur Hauts de France.
i.e. 5 marine fishers, 3 inland fishers and 3 fish traders.
Approval of accounts
The treasurer then presented the financial statements. The existing cash balance is 2132.72 euros. This does not correspond to all the subscriptions received, as some are paid via the Helloasso platform.
No expenses were made in 2024.
Details are given in the above presentation.
Eric Blanc asked about the exact number of members. The list that will be updated on the website corresponds to those who have paid their annual subscription at least once. There are 230 of them. A check is currently being carried out for 2024.
The accounts were approved by the members present.
Achievements and future goals
Our first achievements
A site that defends the fishing sector and responds to the ‘Fake News’ spread by numerous NGOs that claim to be environmental and that have only one aim: to participate voluntarily or involuntarily in the disappearance of a small-scale fishing profession that is part of UNESCO’s intangible heritage and is one of the characteristic cultural elements of our territories.
Structured, well-argued reports based on referenced publications produced in particular by the two expert bodies consulted by the European Union: ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) and GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean).
A summary based on factual and referenced information, known as the ‘Eel White Paper’, which puts the impact of fishing on eel resources into perspective in relation to the effects and impacts of other uses. The White Paper has been validated by the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Élevages Marins, CONAPPED (Comité National de la Pêche Professionnelle en Eau Douce) and ARA France (Association pour le Repeuplement de l’Anguille en France).
An initial network of actors spread across the Atlantic coast to support the official structures of sea and freshwater fishing.
A brand that is beginning to find its identity in France.
Our future goals
1 – To structure the association by creating a genuine network of stakeholders enabling all relevant information to be rapidly transmitted and disseminated.
2 – Structure the ‘AFPMAR’ brand to make it a benchmark brand for eel fishing and trade in France and, more widely in Europe.
3 – Balance profits within the eel industry with 2 requests: key modification (article 7, §6 EU1100/2007) and sub-quota for exports outside the EU – CITES regulation/Annex II).
4 – Extend the brand specifications to yellow and silver eels.
5 – Organise meetings on eels.