On Thursday, September 4, the SEC (Social and Economic Committee) met at the CNPMEM headquarters in Paris to evaluate the advice provided by the SC (Scientific Committee) on the quantity of glass eels to be fished for the coming season. Based on an analysis whose foundations are highly questionable (see previous news item), the CS recommended a total quota (including consumption and restocking) of 26.1 tons, without taking into account the decrease in the number of fishermen, the number of fishing days, or market constraints, which have a significant impact on the definition of the quota level.
However, this advice explicitly stated that: “ A contrario, as soon as the effective reduction (in the number of fishermen) exceeds 56%, this alone is sufficient to achieve the management objective, making quota management unnecessary.” Yet, according to the same report, this reduction since 2015 exceeds 53% and is close to 60%!
All this is based on an estimate that pretends to take into account fishermen’s observations, but in no way questions the reliability of a recruitment index curve that has not taken into account data from the French commercial fishery since almost 2008!
An expertise in the form of a hoax that does not even elicit a response from the relevant authority.
On the basis of this “expertise,” the relevant authority therefore proposed 26 tons without considering the validity of this opinion and, above all, without taking into account the social and economic impact that such a decision would have.
Faced with the outcry that such a proposal sparked among the professional representatives present, the administration proposed 40 tons accompanied by a “scrapping” plan to be negotiated with Brussels. In short, this was an empty promise and, in any case, unacceptable given the low quota, which can only lead to the end of the glass eel fishing industry in France and therefore in Europe.
It is also unacceptable that European and national administrations do not question the relevance of such expert reports, which are based on fragmentary observations and do not take into account the quantitative observations collected specifically within this fishery. This is completely contrary to professional ethics in this field, especially since such an opinion has consequences for the future of many families and for the preservation of an activity that is part of a common heritage and essential to many rural and maritime areas.
Two possible solutions to be deferred in time
- In the short term for the 2025-2026 season, 65 tons so that the consumption sub-quota, which allows for an acceptable price for harvested glass eels, is not too low (40% of the total quota). Creation of a structure to centralize requests from restocking operators in Europe and supply them according to their requests. Establishment of a minimum price for restocking and effective control of the traceability of glass eels used for restocking (glass eels produced must come from glass eels sold for restocking and not for consumption, which is by no means guaranteed at present).
- For the 2026-2027 fishing season, the quota will be reduced to 55 tons, but this will be associated with a change in the consumption/restocking allocation key in accordance with Regulation 1100/2007, given that the price of restocking glass eels is much lower than that of glass eels for consumption, which has been the case for many years, and a sub-quota for exports outside the EU not prohibited by the CITES Appendix II classification, provided that a management plan is approved by the EU and that international trade does not harm the future of the species, which is the case since the glass eels will be taken from the consumption quota.
We keep repeating this: the credibility of Europe and our administration is at stake. We cannot continue to accept unsubstantiated advice that jeopardizes not only the future of this small-scale artisanal fishing fleet, but also that of many families who are suffering not only from the degradation of aquatic environments whose ecological integrity has been plundered by numerous uses, but also from the whims of an administration that annually holds a sword of Damocles over their heads.