The European Commission, in a Note from the Directorate General for the Environment (Ref. Ares(2024)7730153 dated October 30, 2024) addressed to non-European countries located in the European eel’s natural colonization area, encourages the classification of the European eel in Appendix I of CITES, i.e. a classification prohibiting the exploitation of the species, including for restocking.
This is being done on the quiet, without taking into account the earlier opinion of the European Parliament expressed in the Van-Ruyssen report of November 2023, and after having received yet another non-advice from ICES answering the Commission’s question: “what is the volume of catches that can be taken to be consistent with sustainable exploitation of the species?”. A question to which this expert body had already said since 2021 that it had no answer.
In fact, the ICES Eel Working Group, which only assesses the impact of fishing on the basis of the terms of reference set by the Commission in its letter of order, does not have the elements required to set the volume of catches within a framework of sustainable exploitation. According to the precautionary approach advocated by ICES, the automatic advice is “don’t fish at all!
However, the elected representatives of the European Parliament were clear in the Van-Ruyssen report of November 2023: fishing had achieved its objectives of minimizing its ecological footprint, but other uses had not. Under these conditions, it was necessary to evaluate the eel management plans of member states in order to have a global vision, as requested in EU regulation 1100/2007.
Instead, the European Commission continues to ask questions to which it knows the answer, in order to support its position, which is the eradication of small-scale professional sea and inland fishing.
By arrogating to itself the right, without discussion, to speak on behalf of all European countries in negotiations with CITES on a subject that is vital to many companies, the Commission is deliberately sacrificing small-scale inland, estuarine and marine fishing in France, as well as the entire eel industry in Europe.
By requesting that the European eel be placed on Appendix 1 of CITES, the Commission is calling for a ban on fishing, and consequently the disappearance of the eel farming industry in Europe.
All for nothing! Stopping fishing is in no way the solution to restoring the species, 80% of whose continental habitats have disappeared or are inaccessible. Stopping fishing will not stop the substantial losses due to hydroelectric production, the lack of ecological continuity in many watersheds, or improvements in the quality of our rivers, whose situation is only worsening, as indicated by the latest report from the European Environment Agency. All this is included in the assessment reports of the EMPs or in the national reports submitted to the ICES Eel Working Group.
No, the Directorate-General for the Environment must not conceal the failure of its environmental policy in Europe, which has led to the failure to achieve the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Directive (MSFD) and the Habitats Directive, by handing small-scale fishing, a heritage activity in many European regions, over to the NGOs.
We firmly demand that the decisions of the Van-Ruyssen report be implemented:
1 – An end to the relentless attack on fishing and a strengthening of constraints on other uses, in accordance with the polluter-pays principle;
2 – Modification of the Commission’s request to refer to the evaluation of management plans rather than to the quantity of acceptable catches. It should be noted that only France is complying with this request for the fishing sector, by questioning a group of experts, some of whom belong to the ICES eel working group questioned by the Commission. The request is to quantify, in accordance with regulation 1100/2007, the reduction in fishing mortality (based on the reduction in effective effort). The results speak for themselves: the exploitation rate of glass eels over the last season is at a level of 48% of the reference period (2003 – 2008), assuming that not all glass eels destined for restocking survive, and that the 58% reduction in the number of fishermen has no impact on the level of fishing mortality. This value is therefore very conservative and undoubtedly indicates that the objective of reducing the exploitation rate has been achieved and is below the 40% reference level (management target).
3 – Authorization to export part of the consumption quota to the Asian market, with the aim of “fishing less and adding value”, while preserving the interests of the farming and restocking industry in Europe.
Finally, it’s time for the European administration to stop commissioning expert reports to strengthen its own positions. This is no longer democracy, it’s technocracy, and European integration doesn’t need this!