In response to questions from various stakeholders, MEP I. Le Callennec asked the EU’s DG ENVI about the possibility of listing the species in Appendix I of CITES.
It should be remembered that this species is listed in Appendix II of CITES, which requires a certificate of non-detrimental finding to be obtained before any transport outside the range of the European eel.
In her written question P-000590/2025 to the Commission, Mrs Le Callennec points out: ‘Such a measure (inclusion in Annex I) would have serious consequences for the French fishing industry, including downstream operators, since it would prohibit the trade in European eels for consumption and thus lead to the closure of certain small-scale fisheries, which are nonetheless crucial to the restocking and recovery of the stock’.
To this question, the Commission replied that: ‘The listing of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla, currently listed in Annex II) in Annex I was considered in particular in the light of the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. However, the analysis and input provided by Member State experts, stakeholders and other range States of the European eel has led the Commission to conclude that further consideration of the potential impact of a reclassification on the conservation status of this species is required. Therefore, at this stage, the Commission does not intend to propose to the Council to list the European eel in Appendix I of CITES’.
Although the Commission has postponed its request to include eel in Annex I, which it was due to propose at the next Conference of the Parties (COP 20), from 24 November to 5 December 2025, it has not abandoned it. Once again, we find it unacceptable that this kind of decision is being considered without a serious assessment of the national eel management plans, as requested in the European Parliament’s report of November 2023 (Van-Ruysen report).
We would point out that the assessments carried out by scientific bodies such as ICES are based on glass eel recruitment indicators which, since 2008, have no longer taken into account the precise observations collected from the main fisheries in the Bay of Biscay. These show a very clear increase in glass eel catches per trip over the last ten years, well above the levels detected in the early 2000s.
It is not normal that the Commission should continue to focus, for unexplained reasons, on the fisheries sector when the other anthropogenic factors acting on the artificialisation of estuaries and the limitation of ecological continuity have made little or no effort to minimise their ecological footprint. We are once again calling on the European authorities to carry out an assessment of the eel management plans as soon as possible. The credibility of the European authorities in protecting and managing natural resources is at stake.