Annual
three-month
eel fishing
closures
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided. But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
22
1
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
problem, in the following terms:
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregation. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
–required
do
they
protect migrating eels in the EU?
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 below.
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
p. 4 Union, Document 5382/18 of 16 January 2018:
Reference: Council 57of Guidelines,
the European
Joint Declaration on58strengthening
ClientEarth p. 6the recovery for European eel (Commission and Member States):
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5382-2018-INIT/en/pdf
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
© Mikelane45 | Dreamstime.com
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
222
eht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
June 2021
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dAuthors:
luohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hNiki
cihwSporrong,
rof saera lSenior
acihparPolicy
goeg ehOfficer
t nehW&.sEuropean
tnemssessaEel
kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-Project
reted erManager,
a seitinutThe
roppFisheries
o gnihsfiSecretariat
hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
rElena
etaergTamarit
a ot gniCastro,
dael ,gnresearcher
ignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dPublished
na yticapac tby:
eefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
The Fisheries Secretariat (FishSec)
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Prästgatan 9, SE-111 29 Stockholm, Sweden
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
+46 8 25 07 90
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
E-mail: info(at)fishsec.org
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
www.fishsec.org
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rISBN:
etpahC
ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
978-91-639-9059-5
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
d
na cFisheries
itlaB nretSecretariat
sae eht ni g(FishSec)
nihsfi slesissevanneindependent
ewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
The
enon-profit
dam noitcnorganisation
itsid on semidedicated
temos si erto
ehtthe
,esrprotection
oW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gand
nihsrestoration
fi esoht dnaofaeSmarine
htroNecosystem
eht ni gnihservices,
sfi esoht ,with
citlaBa eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
focus on fisheries.
-Our
bo ngoal
a tahist dwell
eveilmanaged
eb ssecorpseas
mrowith
fer ehrich
t ni biodiversity
stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dand
na thriving
esicerp efish
romstocks
a“ ni to
tlusecure
ser dluhealthy
ow tnem
geslocal
teeflseayb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
and
85
” kcots hsfi nand
eviga asustainable
gnitceffa nfishing
oitautissector.
yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
-food
woHto .consumers
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Contents
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided. But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
22
3
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
problem, in the following terms:
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
Summary......................................................................................................................5
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 6
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
Background.................................................................................................................7
targeted)
as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
(as
defined
by vessel
length
and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaWhy the focus
on eel
migration?.............................................................................9
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
across
many
different................................................................................................
fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
Baltic eel
migration
11
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
Baltic region closures ............................................................................................. 12
fisheries
across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate
picture
of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
Sweden
........................................................................................................................12
section 2.6 below.
Finland ........................................................................................................................13
Estonia..........................................................................................................................13
1.2.3.5
Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for
determining of fishing opportunity
Latvia.............................................................................................................................14
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
Lithuania.......................................................................................................................14
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocksPoland...........................................................................................................................15
are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
Germany.......................................................................................................................16
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporDenmark.
......................................................................................................................17
tunities
are determined
differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Baltic regional conclusions....................................................................................
17
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misAtlanticincreasing
eel migration.
............................................................................................
21
leading,
the risk
that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
aAtlantic
result, itregion
becomes
more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
closures.........................................................................................
21
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Ireland ..........................................................................................................................21
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Denmark.......................................................................................................................22
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas Germany.
for which......................................................................................................................22
stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
The Netherlands.........................................................................................................23
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
thoseBelgium.........................................................................................................................23
fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between
vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
France...........................................................................................................................24
in both seas.
Spain..............................................................................................................................26
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obPortugal........................................................................................................................29
ligation
to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed
of the
fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 HowAtlanticpicture
regional
conclusions................................................................................
30
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
242
eMediterranean
ht fo weivrevo yeel
rotcmigration.
afsitas a te...............................................................................
g ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC e35
ht
sMediterranean
i noitamrofni yraregion
tnemelclosures
ppus etau...........................................................................
qeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitau35
tis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
Spain..............................................................................................................................36
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
France...........................................................................................................................38
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
no snItaly.
oisul.c...............................................................................................................................39
noc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynamMalta
ssorca.............................................................................................................................40
sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
Slovenia ........................................................................................................................40
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
Croatia...........................................................................................................................40
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
Greece.
-agergg
a hcus..........................................................................................................................41
diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnCyprus...........................................................................................................................42
emges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
conclusions.
hMediterranean
guohtla( lufesu eregional
b ton yam
etatS rebm.e.................................................................
M eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssor42
ca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
Overall
n
i liatedconclusions
erom ni dessand
ucsidrecommendations......................................................
si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etaruc45
ca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Main conclusions........................................................................................................45
Other aspects to consider.......................................................................................46
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
Regional reflections...................................................................................................47
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dluohRecommendations.
s denimreted era sei.t...................................................................................................50
inutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
rReferences................................................................................................................
etaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,deni53
m
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dAnnex
na yticI.apThe
ac telegal
efl neprovisions.
ewteb ecna.l...............................................................................
ab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb59
ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Summary
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided.
Buthas
thisbeen
is not
under
the current
European eel
in required
decline for
decades
and is onGuidelines.
the IUCN and EU Red lists as
22
5
Critically
Endangered.
A regulation
for its acknowledging
recovery was agreed
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
do goestablishing
part of themeasures
way towards
this
in 2007 but
yet ledterms:
to any improvements. Despite this, European eel remains
problem,
in has
the not
following
the target of both commercial and recreational fishing in most EU Member States.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
for eachproposed
fleet segment
separately.
Aggregated
analyses
many
In 2017,imbalance
the Commission
to close
all fishing
for eel longer
than across
12 cm in
EU
57
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
waters, in line with scientific advice. The EU Member States rejected this proposal.
Instead,
a political
compromise
was agreedof– different
a Joint Declaration
strengthening
While
this
advice identifies
the aggregation
fisheries (i.e.ondifferent
stocks
the
recovery
for
European
eel.
The
annual
three-month
eel
fishing
closures
were
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segmenta
partdefined
of thisby
agreement,
attempting
togear
protect
migration
butaggregaavoid a
(as
vessel length
and main
type)the
is spawning
sufficient to
avoid such
full prohibition
of allthis
eel fisheries
in coastal
and marine
waters.
tion.
Unfortunately,
is misleading,
inasmuch
as many
of the fleet segments as
currently
target
onethe
fishspawning
stock. Thus,
while of
aggregated
The initialdefined
agreement
set more
out tothan
protect
migration
silver eels,analyses
taking
across
many
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
may
not
be
useful
(although
their migration period into consideration when deciding on which three consecutive
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2), aggregated
analysestoofcover
individual
months the
closure
should
apply.
This agreement
was later extended
all eel
fisheries
across
different
segments
and
Member
States
may
be
crucial
to
get
an
life stages, and therefore also the arrival of glass eels. In December 2018, a similar
accurate
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
provision for the Mediterranean region was agreed, covering all waters.
section 2.6 below.
In this report, we assess the compliance across the EU Member States with both the
legal requirements
of basis
the three-month
eel fishery
closures,
and the
intent to protect
1.2.3.5
Geographical
used for stock
and capacity
balance
assessment,
eel migration.
and
for determining of fishing opportunity
Ideally,
thefound
management
areasMember
for whichStates
fishingare
opportunities
are determined
What we
is that many
not in compliance
with the should
intent
match
the areas
covered are
by stock
assessments.
When
thethe
geographical
areas for
of the law.
The closures
mostly
in compliance
with
legal provisions
butwhich
they
stocks
are
assessed
differ
from
the
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
are
deterare not protecting the spawning migration. Only a few countries fulfil the intent to
mined,
management
becomes
challenging,
leading
a greater
protect fisheries
the mature
silver eels that
are onmuch
theirmore
way to
the Sargasso
Sea totoreproduce.
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporThere arearea determined
few examples
of full
prohibition
fisheries,
or full
alignment
with
tunities
differ
from
the areas of
forall
which
capacity
balance
is assessed,
thebecomes
peak migration
periods. Intogeneral,
however,
closures
eitherfleet
overlap
withand
the
it
nearly impossible
assess the
actual the
balance
between
capacity
migration
to some extent and are likely to have some effects, or there is little or no
fishing
opportunities.
overlap. Many fisheries still specifically target the silver eel migration and/or the
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misarrival of glass eels.
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
aThe
result,
it becomes
difficultnot
foronly
fisheries
managers
take decisions
that
effectiveness
of more
this measure
depends
on thetoclosures
matching
thewill
eel
allow
depleted
stocks
to
recover.
migration periods, but also on the fishing patterns in each Member State. In the
Balticreview
and Atlantic
regions,
the closures
apply
to marine
andregion
coastalinwaters.
In
Our
of national
capacity
balance only
reports
in the
Baltic Sea
Chapter
where
most
the fishing
takes place
in inland waters,
such
closure
not
2countries
shows that
there
areofserious
geographical
discrepancies
between
ona the
one ishand
very
effective.
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
and on the other
areas isforalso
which
capacityparticularly
is assessed. in
Forthe
example,
Regional coordination
of thehand
closures
important,
Medithere
is
often
no
distinction
made
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
eastern
Baltic
and
terranean and the Baltic regions, as all the eels in each region have to pass through
those
fishing in
the western
Baltic. Worse,
thereand
is sometimes
no distinction
made
the relatively
narrow
straits between
Gibraltar
Morocco, and
between Sweden
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
and Denmark, where they are particularly vulnerable to fishing. While there is some
in
both seas. in both regions, it does not take the migration patterns sufficiently
coordination
into account.
After
the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
The EU is still not protecting the migration of this sensitive species, and millions
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 Howof eels are landed every year. In the EU, over 55 tonnes of glass eel and almost 2 500
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
262
ofeyellow
2019.
etonnes
ht fo w
ivrevo and
yrotsilver
cafsitaeels
s a were
teg olegally
t elba elanded
b ton in
lliw
srehThere
to dnare
a nalso
oissiwidespread
mmoC eht
sillegal
i noitaand
mrounreported
fni yratnemcatches.
elppus eThe
tauqBaltic
eda firegion
defiitctakes
er eb the
,revlargest
ewoh ,nproportion
ac siTh .noof
itayelutis
low and silver eel – over
tonnes,
.seni1le100
diuG
tnerrufollowed
c eht redby
nuthe
derAtlantic
iuqer tonregion
si siht–tuanB estimated
.dedivorp
856 tonnes, and around 520 tonnes in the Mediterranean EU Member States. In the
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
Baltic region, a very substantial part of the estimated landings are recreational: at
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
least 342 tonnes, or over 30 %, whereas it is likely to be less than 10 % in the Atlantic
n
o snoiand
sulcnover
oc w5a%
rdinotthe
noiMediterranean.
tanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
region
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
Recommendations
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
The EU needs to improve the implementation of the three-month fishing closures to
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
facilitate the recovery of European eel. We recommend the following steps:
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-ager•gga The
hcusintent
diovabehind
ot tneicthe
ffiuthree-month
s si )epyt raeclosures
g niam d–natohprotect
tgnel lesthe
sev spawners
yb denfie–d sa(
sa stnemmust
ges tebe
eflmade
eht foclear
ynam
sa hlegal
cumstext.
ani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
in the
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
• To ensure that Member States protect the peak spawning migration, the
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
fixed time period for the Baltic and Atlantic regions (currently 1 August
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
to 28 February) should be adjusted to better match the migration period
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
across the regions, ending on 31 December, or prolonged from three to four
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
months.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
• To maximise the effects of the fishing closure, it should apply to all waters,
as has been agreed in the Mediterranean region.
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
More timely detailed data on eel migration
ytinutroptogether
po gnihswith
fi fo ganbetter
inimrebreak-down
ted rof dna
geographically,
dluohs deofnicatches
mretedand
era landings
seitinutrof
opall
polife
gnistages,
hsfi hciboth
hw roinf stime
aeraand
tnem
eganam eht ,yisllaedI
needed
in
order
to
properly
evaluate
the
effects
of
the
closures.
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-rete•d erAdditional
a seitinutrotemporal
ppo gnihsclosures
fi hcihwshould
rof saebe
ra used
eht mtoorprotect
f reffidEuropean
dessessa eeel
ra skcots
retaerg aspawners,
ot gnidaespecifically
l ,gnignellahtargeting
c erom hc“bottlenecks”
um semoceb on
tnethe
megmigration
anam seirroute,
ehsfi ,denim
-roppo gwhere
nihsfi hthe
ciheels
w roare
f saforced
era lacto
ihpaggregate.
argoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dess•essaItsiwould
ecnalabe
b ypreferable
ticapac hcithat
hw rthe
of sathree-month
era eht morfclosure
reffid dalso
enimapplies
reted eto
ra seitinut
dna yticalandings
pac teefland
neew
t
e
b
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
l
a
u
t
c
a
e
h
t
s
s
e
s
s
a
o
t
e
l
b
i
s
s
o
p
m
i
y
l
r
a
e
n
s
emeels
oceb
sales, as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing of
is tai
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
massive problem.
•
-sim•nevIn
e ro2018,
sselgEuropean
ninaem seeel
mowas
ceb tadded
nemssto
essthe
a ecSpecific
nalab ytiControl
capac ehand
t ,esaInspection
c tsrow eht nI
sA .decuProgrammes
der ro defiitn(SCIPs)
edi eb tby
onCommission
lliw yticapacImplementing
revo taht ksir eDecision
ht gnisae(EU)
rcni ,gnidael
lliw taht2018/1986
snoisiced for
ekaall
t otEU
sreregions
ganam –sethe
irehMediterranean,
sfi rof tlucffiid ethe
romBaltic
semoSea,
ceb tWestern
i ,tluser a
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
ed wolla
Waters and the North Sea. These monitoring programmes should cover
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC inspections
ni noiger aeat
S csea
itlaand
B ehin
t nport
i stroatpethe
r ecpoint
nalabofytlanding
icapac la(before
noitan first
fo wesale),
iver ruO
and
are
implemented
through
a
Joint
Deployment
Programme
(JDP)
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swfor
ohs 2
-ed era seeach
itinuregion.
troppoItgnwould
ihsfi hbe
cihgood
w roftosaadd
era dcontrol
na desseofssthe
a eraeelskfishing
cots hcclosures
ihw rof sas
aeraa
Specific
Action
to
each
of
the
JDPs.
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
The current closures have not stopped several countries from increasing their catchedam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
es over the same time period. Even with perfectly aligned and fully implemented
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
three-month closures, this conservation measure is less effective and more difficult
.saes htob ni
to control than a full prohibition of eel fishing. A full closure would also be in line
-with
bo nthe
a taambitions
ht deveilebofssthe
ecorEU
p mBiodiversity
rofer eht ni Strategy
stnapicitunder
rap emthe
os ,Green
mroferDeal
3102to
ehprotect
t reft A
d
n
a
e
s
i
c
e
r
p
e
r
o
m
a
“
n
i
t
l
u
s
e
r
d
l
u
o
w
t
n
e
m
g
e
s
t
e
e
fl
y
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
o
t
n
oitagil
biodiversity and sensitive species.
85
-woH .” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Background
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided.
But this
is not required
under
the current
The European
eel (Anguilla
anguilla)
population
has Guidelines.
been declining for a long time
and is
classified as Critically
for ConservaThe
Commission’s
GuidelinesEndangered
do go partbyofthe
theInternational
way towardsUnion
acknowledging
this
tion of Nature
2020).
The International Council for the Exploration of the
problem,
in the(IUCN,
following
terms:
Sea (ICES) has advised that all anthropogenic mortality should be kept as close to
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
zero as possible since 2003 (ICES, 2020). For these reasons, a Council Regulation
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
(1100/2007) establishing measures for the recovery of the stock
of European eel was
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
agreed in 2007. Since then, 13 years after its adoption, no notable recovery has been
While
thisinadvice
identifieseel
thepopulation;
aggregationthough
of different
fisheries (i.e.
different
stocks
observed
the European
the long-term
decline
in recruittargeted)
as to
unhelpful,
it implies
ensuring
separate treatment of each segment
ment seems
have petered
off atthat
a very
low level.
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaDespite
its conservation
the European
eel is as
stillmany
the target
commercial
tion.
Unfortunately,
thisstatus,
is misleading,
inasmuch
of theoffleet
segmentsand
as
recreational
fishing
in
most
EU
Member
States.
In
2017,
the
Commission
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregatedproposed
analyses
to closemany
all fishing
for eel
longer in
than
cm in EUState
waters:
across
different
fisheries
one12Member
may not be useful (although
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),
aggregated
of individual
“A proposal to prohibit fishing of eels is introduced for all analyses
Union waters,
followfisheries
across
different
segments
and
Member
States
may
be
crucial
to
an
ing scientific advice emphasising the importance of ceasing all fisheries that get
target
accurate
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail
spawners, until there is clear evidence of improvement of the state of the stock.” in
section 2.6 below.
The motivation given for this proposal was1:
The European
eel life cycle
is complex,
it is aand
long-lived
fish balance
which is widely
dispersed:
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis
used forasstock
capacity
assessment,
recentfor
evidence
suggestsofthat
eels spawn
in the Sargasso Sea and their larvae arrive with the
and
determining
fishing
opportunity
ocean currents to the continental shelf of Europe and North Africa, where they transform
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
into glass eels and enter continental waters.
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks
are assessed
areas
for which
fishing opportunities
deterThe recurrent
scientificdiffer
advicefrom
statesthe
that:
“… when
the precautionary
approach is are
applied
mined,
fisheries
management
becomes
more challenging,
leadingfishing
to a greater
for European
eel, all
anthropogenic
impacts much
(e.g. recreational
and commercial
on all
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporstages, hydropower, pumping stations, and pollution) decreasing production and escapement
tunities
areshould
determined
differ
theasareas
of silver eel
be reduced
to –from
or kept
close for
to –which
zero ascapacity
possible.”balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Given the
ICES advice, it is important that all fisheries that target spawners should cease
fishing
opportunities.
until there is a clear evidence of improvement of the state of the stock. In the light of this seIn
worst
case,itthe
capacityappropriate,
balance assessment
becomes
or even any
misverethe
ICES
advice,
is therefore
pending longer
termmeaningless
solutions, to prohibit
leading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity
will
not
be
identified
or
reduced.
fishery of European eel in 2018 in the Union waters of the ICES area and in the Baltic Sea.As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
The text
of the stocks
initial to
proposal
allow
depleted
recover.(COM(2017)645) read as follows:
(7) As regards European eel stock, the ICES advised that all anthropogenic mortalities
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
including recreational and commercial fisheries should be reduced to zero, or kept as
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
close to zero as possible. It is therefore necessary to implement this advice by establishing
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are dea prohibition on fishing for this species in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat, Skagerrak, the North
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Sea, and in the Atlantic Ocean (Union waters).
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those
in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
Articlefishing
43 Prohibitions
between
vessels
fishing
the Baltic, those
Sea
and those
fishing
1. It shall be prohibited
forinthird-country
vesselsfishing
to fish in
for,the
to North
retain on
board,
to tranship
or
in
boththe
seas.
to land
following species whenever they are found in Union waters:
After
the 2013
participants
in the
reform
believed
that an
ob(a) European
eelreform,
(Anguillasome
anguilla)
of an overall
length
of 12process
cm or longer
in Union
waters
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
of the ICES area and in the Baltic Sea;”
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 HowExcerpts from the Commission’s proposal (COM(2017)645).
ever,
as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
1
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
22
7
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
282
Joint
eThis
ht foproposal
weivrevwas
o yrrebutted
otcafsitasbya the
teg Member
ot elba ebStates,
ton llinstead
iw srehresulting
to dna noinissaim
moCDeceht
slaration
i noitamon
rofstrengthening
ni yratnemelpthe
pus recovery
etauqedafor
fi dEuropean
efiitcer ebeel,re(Commission
vewoh ,nac siand
Th .nMember
oitautis
States) (Interinstitutional
.seniledFile:
iuG 2017/0287)
tnerruc ehtand
redthe
nu dinclusion
eriuqer toof
n sai temporary
siht tuB .declosure
divorp
of fisheries for eel of an overall length of 12 cm or longer in Union Waters of ICES
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
areas, including the Baltic Sea. The provision for the three-month-closures was set
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
out in the regulation for fishing opportunities for 2018 (Council Regulation (EU)
n
o snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
2018/120).
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
The aim of the three-month
75
.lufesclosure
u ton erwas
a etato
tS specifically
rebmeM enprotect
o ni seirthe
ehsfispawning
tnereffidmigration of silver eel, as this is when the eels are at their most vulnerable, announced
sCommissioner
kcots tnereffidKarmenu
.e.i( seirehVella
sfi tnat
erethe
ffidpress
fo noconference
itagergga ehfollowing
t sefiitnedthe
i ecFisheries
ivda siht CounelihW
tcil
nem
ges hcaon
e fo13tnDecember
emtaert et2017
arap2.esHe
gnalso
irusnexplained
e taht seilthat
pmi tin
i ,lthe
ufplJoint
ehnuDeclaration,
sa )detegrat
meeting
-the
ageCommission
rgga hcus dioand
va othe
t tnCouncil
eicffius shad
i )epagreed
yt raegtondo
iammore
dna to
htgprotect
nel lessthe
ev yEuropean
b denfiedeel,
sa(
sina particular
stnemges tto
eeflreview
eht fonational
ynam srestocking
a hcumsanipractices
,gnidaelsand
im sto
i sfight
iht ,ylthe
etanillegal
utrofnfisheries
U .noit
sfor
esyeel.
lana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
: rednu deriuqer
inathe
lThe
audsame
ividnimessage
fo sesywas
lanarepeated
detagergg
,)2 Commission
hpargarapbuPress
s )2(2Release
2 elcitr3A
“For
the
first
time
at
EU
level,
it
was
agreed
to
close
eel
fisheries
for
three
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffidmonths
ssorcaduring
seirehsfi
their
States
n
i liamigration
ted eromperiod.
ni desMoreover,
sucsid si Member
eussi siTh
.ecncommitted
alab yticatopaadditional
c eht fo eactions
rutciptoetprotect
arucca
the eels throughout its lifecycle and in all sea basins. These measures are crucial,
both
.woleb 6.2 nfor
oitces
the recovery of the stock and to safeguard the communities who depend on this fishery.”
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
And it was echoed by the Fisheries Council Press Release as well4:
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
“In view of the critical state of eel fisheries, it will be prohibited to fish for European eel of
danluoverall
ohs denlength
imretofed12ercm
a seoritimore
nutroinpUnion
po gniwaters
hsfi hciofhwICES
rof sareas,
aera tincluding
nemeganthe
am Baltic
eht ,ylSea,
laedI
hforcihawconsecutive
rof saera lthree-month
acihpargoegperiod,
eht neto
hW
stnemssessabykceach
ots ymember
b derevstate,
oc saebetween
ra eht hctam
be .determined
-1rSeptember
eted era se2018
itinuand
tro31
ppJanuary
o gnihs2019.
fi hciThat
hw risofthe
saetime
ra ehwhen
t moeels
rf rare
effimigrating
d dessessaand
erathereskcots
rfore
etaeare
rg most
a ot gvulnerable.”
nidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
byothe
,“The
dessedecision
ssa si ecisncomplemented
alab yticapac by
hciahjoint
w rofdeclaration
saera eht m
rf rEuropean
effid deniCommission
mreted era and
seitinut
inoceb ti
dmember
na yticstates
apac twhich
eefl naims
eewtetob further
ecnalabprotect
lautcatheehstock
t ssesofsaEuropean
ot elbissoeel,
pmfor
i yinstance
lraen sem
inland waters, by strengthening eel management plans during all stages
.seitofinthe
utreel
opplifecycle.”
o gnihsfi
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
-These
sim ndocuments
eve ro sselgnclearly
inaem show
semocthat
eb tnthe
emsintent
sessa ebehind
cnalab ythe
ticathree-month
pac eht ,esac closures
tsrow ehwas
t nI
stoA protect
.decuderthe
ro spawning
defiitnedi migration
eb ton lliwofytthe
icapCritically
acrevo tahEndangered
t ksir eht gnEuropean
isaercni ,gneel.
idaIt
el
lisliw
taht snoisto
iceset
d ethis
kat oout
t srehere,
ganam
eirehintent
sfi rof becomes
tlucffiid much
erom svaguer
emocebintithe
,tlulegal
ser a
important
as sthat
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d
w
olla
text in later years, after the inclusion of all eel life stages. In the regulation for 2018,
rhowever,
etpahC niti ndoes
oigerstate
aeS cthat
itlaBthe
ehtthree-month
ni stroper ecban
nalabwas
ytifor
capaeels
c lanlonger
oitan fthan
o wei12
vecm
r ruin
O
Community
waters
“to
protect
spawners
during
their
migration”
(Preamble
(9)).
But
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-already
ed era sthe
eitinnext
utroyear,
ppo gitnreads
ihsfi hinstead:
cihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,”the
elpmfishing
axe roclosure
F .desseperiod
ssa si should
yticapabe
c hconsistent…
cihw rof sawith
era dthe
nahtemporal
rehto ehmigration
t no dna patterns
,denimreoft
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o si ereht
European eel”.
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dCommissioner
na esicerpVella’s
erospeech
m a“ atnpress
i tluconference:
ser dluohttps://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2234641566561276
w tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press/eu-ministers-agree-fishing-catch-limits-atlantic-and-north-sea-2018_en
85
-https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/13/council-agreement-on-2018-fishing-quotas-in-the-atlantic-and-north-sea/#
woH .” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
2
3
4
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
SinceCommission
the initial three-month
closure
agreed,
Fisheries
Commission
the
and others will
notwas
be able
to the
get aGeneral
satisfactory
overview
of the
for the Mediterranean
(GFCM)
adopted
a recommendation
establishing
managesituation.
This can, however,
behas
rectified
if adequate
supplementary
information
is
ment measures
forisEuropean
eel in
the Mediterranean
(GFCM/42/2018/1). This recprovided.
But this
not required
under
the current Guidelines.
ommendation includes an annual closure period of three consecutive months, which
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
needs to be transposed into European Union law. This was initially done through the
problem, in the following terms:
TAC and quota regulation mainly covering the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean (Article
The indicators
are(EU)
intended
to be but
usedfor
in 2020
combination
to draw
conclusions
on
42, Council
Regulation
2019/124),
the closure
was included
in the
imbalance
for(EU)
each2019/2236
fleet segment
Aggregated
analyses across
many
Council
Regulation
fixingseparately.
for 2020 the
fishing opportunities
for certain
57
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
22
9
While
this advice
the aggregation
different
fisheries (i.e.
different
stocks
It is worth
notingidentifies
that the GFCM
provisionoffor
the three-month
closures
is part
of
targeted)
as
unhelpful,
it
implies
that
ensuring
separate
treatment
of
each
segment
the Transitional management measures (Part III in the Recommendation. In 2023,
(as
vessel
length long-term
and main gear
type) is sufficient
such aggregathe defined
GFCM by
plans
to adopt
management
measures to
foravoid
European
eel, and
tion.
Unfortunately,
this
is
misleading,
inasmuch
as
many
of
the
fleet
segments
as
the closures will not necessarily be included.
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
Since the
2017
agreement,
the in
three-month
closures
havenot
been
extended
to all
across
many
different
fisheries
one Member
State may
be useful
(although
life-stagesunder
and allArticle
fisheries22(2)
in EU
and coastal waters,
includinganalyses
recreational
fisheries.
required
subparagraph
2), aggregated
of individual
In
the
provision
for
2019,
the
time
period
during
which
the
three-month
closure
in
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
Union waters
in the
ICES
area can
be set was
by one month
to the
end in
of
accurate
picture
of the
capacity
balance.
Thisextended
issue is discussed
in more
detail
February.
No
such
time
frame
is
provided
for
the
Mediterranean
Member
States
but,
section 2.6 below.
in 2020, wording on commitments to effort and catch reductions were added into
the regulation
(Council
Regulation
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis
used for2021/90).
stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
The decision on the Commission proposals for the 2021/2022 eel fishing closures
Ideally,
the management
areas for whichatfishing
opportunities
areon
determined
should
(COM(2020)377
and COM(2020)668)
the Council
meeting
15–16 December
match
theessentially
areas covered
by stock of
assessments.
Whenfor
thethe
geographical
for which
2020 was
a roll-over
the provisions
past year, areas
but with
some
stocks
are
assessed
differ
from
the
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
are
deterchanges to the text and structure in the regulation for the Mediterranean – see Anmined,
management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
nex I forfisheries
exact details.
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
Why the focus on eel migration?
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misFish migration
is the
of fish
oneidentified
region tooranother.
Most
leading,
increasing
theseasonal
risk thatmovement
overcapacity
willfrom
not be
reduced.
As
fish
species
migrate
to
some
extent,
but
the
European
eel
is
quite
extraordinary.
It
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
reproduces
in the
Sargasso
Sea, follows the currents to shores as far apart as Iceland,
allow
depleted
stocks
to recover.
Finland, Morocco and Turkey; small numbers even migrate into the Black Sea. Eels
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
then spend roughly between 10 and 20 years in inland or coastal waters, growing until
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
they reach maturation and transform into silver eels – the last stage of a complex life
areas
for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are decycle. The silver eels set out on the long migration back to the Sargasso Sea to spawn.
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there
often
distinction
made
between
vessels fishing
in the eastern
and
There isare
stillno
many
unknowns
around
the migration
of European
eel. ItBaltic
is clearly
those
fishing inthan
the western
Baltic.
Worse,
is sometimes
no distinction
made
more complex
one might
expect,
withthere
individual
eels showing
large variation
between
vessels
in the Baltic,
those Some
fishingare
inslow;
the North
and
thosemay
fishing
in terms of
speedfishing
and migratory
patterns.
othersSea
fast.
There
also
in
be both
greatseas.
differences within a country due to the distances the eels need to cover, and
certainly between eels in inland versus coastal waters.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation
to present
capacityon
bymultiple
fleet segment
“a more precise
and
The European
eel’s reliance
habitatwould
types result
makes in
it particularly
vulnera58
detailed
picture of theimpacts,
fishing capacity
situation affecting
fish stock”.
Howble to anthropogenic
such as fragmentation,
landa given
use changes
and climate
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
10
echange.
ht fo wBut
eivreitvois yduring
rotcafsithe
tas migration
a teg ot elbthat
a ebeels
tonare
lliwthesremost
hto dvulnerable
na noissimto
momigraC eht
stion
i nobarriers,
itamrofnpredators
i yratnemeand
lppufishing.
s etauqWhen
eda fi species
defiitcemove,
r eb ,reespecially
vewoh ,nathe
c sisynchronized
Th .noitautis
movement of a collective
individuals,
.seniledof
iuG
tnerruc ehtthis
redfacilitates
nu deriuqeexploitation
r ton si siht tuofB otherwise
.dedivorp
patchy and seasonally variable resources (Baker, 1978; Jørgensen et al., 2008). Suddensiht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
ly, you can catch many together with less effort. With European eel this is evident at
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
local scale, where geographical configurations may lead to a concentration of migratn
o seels
noisin
ulcnarrow
noc warpassages.
d ot noitaTypically,
nibmoc ndams
i desuorebthe
ot exit/entrance
dednetni era sof
rotlagoons
acidni eare
Th zones
ing
yinnawhich
m ssormigrating
ca sesylanaeels
detare
ageconcentrated,
rggA .yletarapmaking
es tnemgthem
es teemore
fl hcavulnerable
e rof ecnalato
bm
i
fisheries
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
s
fi
t
n
e
r
e
ff
i
d
and other impacts.
sCapture
kcots tnfisheries
ereffid .eaffect
.i( seirboth
ehsfi the
tnerabundance
effid fo noiand
tagethe
rggadistribution
eht sefiitneof
di migratory
ecivda sihtfish.
elihSo
W
taside
nemgfrom
es hcthe
ae fneed
o tneto
mcreate
taert efree
tarap
es gnirucomplementary
sne taht seilpmmanagement
i ti ,lufplehnmeasures
u sa )detesuch
grat
passage,
-asagtemporal
ergga hcuprotected
s diova otareas,
tneicffi
u
s
s
i
)
e
p
y
t
r
a
e
g
n
i
a
m
d
n
a
h
t
g
n
e
l
l
e
s
s
e
v
y
b
d
e
n
fi
e
d
species prohibitions and gear restrictions are needed. sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
Commission
sIn
esy2017,
lana the
detaCouncil
gergga eand
lihwthe
,suTh
.kcots hsfiagreed
eno naon
ht the
eromneed
tegrto
at protect
denfied migrating
yltnerruc
silver
eels
as
a
matter
of
priority,
as
it
is
during
the
spawning
migration
that
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam
ssoeels
rca
lare
audthe
ividmost
ni fo vulnerable.
sesylana deIttais
geralso
gga quite
,)2 hpnaturally
argarapbuthe
s )2peak
(22 efishing
lcitrA season
rednu dinermany
iuqer
countries,
fishseare
n
a teg ot las
aicmigrating
urc eb yam
tatSeasier
rebmto
eMcatch,
dna particularly
stnemges tnwhen
ereffidthey
ssorhave
ca seto
irepass
hsfi
natural
n
i liatedchoke
erompoints.
ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
The annual ICES advice on eel (ICES, 2020) also focuses on reducing the mortality
of silver eels:
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutro
po gnifor
hsfiEuropean
fo gninim
tedanthroporof dna
ICES advises that when the precautionary approach
ispapplied
eel,reall
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
dgenic
luohimpacts
s denim(e.g.
retecaused
d era sby
eitrecreational
inutroppo gand
nihcommercial
sfi hcihw rofishing
f saeraon
tnall
emlife
egastages,
nam ehhydropowt ,yllaedI
her,cihpumping
w rof sastations,
era lacihand
pargpollution)
oeg eht nethat
hW decrease
.stnemssproduction
essa kcots and
yb descapement
erevoc saeraofehsilver
t hcteels
am
2021.
-should
reted be
erareduced
seitinuto,
troorppkept
o gnasihclose
sfi has
cihpossible
w rof sto,
aerzero
a ehin
tm
orf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
In order to protect the migrating eels effectively, however, we need to know when
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
they are migrating. Scientific studies have focused on many different aspects of Euro,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
pean eel migration. For this report, we looked at the ICES Special Request Advice on
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
temporal migration patterns of European eel (Anguilla anguilla), and the underlying
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
report from the ICES Workshop on the temporal migration patterns of European
-eel
sim(WKEELMIGRATION,
neve ro sselgninaem sem2020),
oceb tnasemwell
ssessas
a enumerous
cnalab yticscientific
apac eht ,epapers.
sac tsrow
ht nI
In esome
scases,
A .dewe
cudhave
er rohad
defipersonal
itnedi ebcontact
ton lliw
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
r
e
v
o
t
a
h
t
k
s
i
r
e
h
t
g
n
i
s
a
e
r
c
n
i
,
g
n
idael
with national scientists working with European
leel
liwassessments
taht snoisiceind ethe
katfield.
ot sreAs
ganthe
am scurrent
eirehsfi legal
rof tlframework
ucffiid eromfor
sem
ocethree-month
b ti ,tluser a
the
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
telpand
ed silver
wolla
closures covers all eel life stages, this report attempts to map both glass eel
reel
etpmigrations.
ahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dMany
nah edifferent
no eht nofactors
neewtaffect
eb seiceel
napmigration,
ercsid laciincluding
hpargoeg slunar
uoirephases
s era erand
eht flood
taht sevents.
wohs 2
-Silver
ed eraeel
seimigration
tinutroppois gnocturnal
nihsfi hcihand
w rooften
f saerhighly
a dna coordinated.
dessessa era sThey
kcotstend
hcihw
r
o
f saera
to descend
,rivers
elpmawhen
xe roFtemperature
.dessessa si yand
ticapphotoperiod
ac hcihw rof decrease
saera dna(Bruijs
h rehtoand
eht Durif,
no dna2009).
,denim
ret
This
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o
s
i
e
r
e
ht
occurs earlier at northern latitudes (Vøllestad et al., 1986). In northern countries,
esilver
dam eels
noitusually
cnitsid start
on setheir
mitem
os si ereht migration
,esroW .citin
laBlate
nrsummer
etsew ehand
t ni early
gnihsautumn
fi esoht
downstream
g(Sandlund
nihsfi esohett dal.,
na 2017).
aeS htThere
roN ehist nalso
i gnevidence
ihsfi esohthat
t ,citlthe
aB egeographical
ht ni gnihsfi location
slessev nehas
ewtan
eb
.saestohttravel
ob ni
effect on the onset of migration – i.e. the distance that migrating eels have
-toboget
natotathe
ht dSargasso
eveileb ssSea
eco(Amilhat
rp mroferetehal.,
t n2016).
i stnapThis
icitrmakes
ap emoits difficult
,mrofer 3to10define
2 eht rclear
eft A
regions.
dmigration
na esicerpperiods
erom afrom
“ ni tldifferent
user dluow
tnemgIn
es tgeneral,
eefl yb ythe
ticadownstream
pac tneserp omigration
t noitagil
85 September and the migration period may extend until January, with a peak
.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
-starts
woH in
rinebOctober–November.
meM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
In southern
latitudes,
in areaswill
where
eelstomust
through
the Gibraltar
the
Commission
and others
not silver
be able
get aescape
satisfactory
overview
of the
Strait, theThis
migration
occurs slightly
later,ifstarting
insupplementary
October and extending
until
situation.
can, however,
be rectified
adequate
information
is
January (Figure
4). isSilver
eels tagged
withthe
pop-up
satellite
tags (PSAT) were tracked
provided.
But this
not required
under
current
Guidelines.
during their migration towards the Sargasso Sea and passed through the Gibraltar
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
Strait in March 2016, after being tagged in early December 2015 (Amilhat et al., 2016).
problem, in the following terms:
For glass
the trend
reversed,towith
an earlier
arrival of to
glass
eelsconclusions
in the southTheeels,
indicators
are isintended
be used
in combination
draw
on
ern parts
of
the
distribution
than
in
the
northern
parts.
Landings
of
glass
eels
in
the
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
Mediterranean
andone
lagoons
occur
laterare
than
the Atlantic
estuaries, where
57
different estuaries
fisheries in
Member
State
notinuseful.
the migratory season usually starts in October–November and may extend to FebWhile
this advice
identifies
aggregation
of different
(i.e. different
ruary–March.
In some
areas,the
glass
eels are found
all year fisheries
around, such
as in thestocks
rivers
targeted)
as
unhelpful,
it
implies
that
ensuring
separate
treatment
of
each
segment
Guadalquivir (Spain) and Mondego (Portugal). Most glass eels that pass through the
(as
defined
by vessel
length
mainhabitats
gear type)
is sufficient
to avoid
English
Channel
move
into and
suitable
along
the way and
theresuch
are aggregano glass
tion.
Unfortunately,
this
is
misleading,
inasmuch
as
many
of
the
fleet
segments
as
eel fisheries further north, in countries bordering the North Sea (Creutzberg, 1961).
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
Looking
at thedifferent
entire geographical
of European
thenot
information
migraacross
many
fisheries in range
one Member
Stateeel,
may
be useful on
(although
tion periods
is somewhat
patchy,
and fisheries2),data
is often used
as a substitute
for
required
under
Article 22(2)
subparagraph
aggregated
analyses
of individual
migration
studies.
We
have
sometimes
extrapolated
in
our
analysis,
assuming
migrafisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
tion patterns
are similar
in areas close
to each
conclusions
accurate
picture
of the capacity
balance.
Thisother,
issue or
is drawn
discussed
in more from
detailsevin
eral
papers
showing
slightly
different
patterns.
The
information
we
have
gathered
on
section 2.6 below.
migration periods has been brought together with the timing of the national closures
in threeGeographical
regional figures
(seeused
pagesfor19,stock
32–33,
44).capacity balance assessment,
1.2.3.5
basis
and
22
11
and for determining of fishing opportunity
There are several ongoing studies of eel migration patterns in the EU, and knowledge
Ideally,
the management
for which
fishing
opportunities
are determined should
in this area
will no doubtareas
improve
over the
coming
years.
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it
becomes
impossible
to to
assess
actual
between
capacity
and
The
naturalnearly
recruitment
of eels
the the
Baltic
Sea balance
is dependent
on afleet
different
migrafishing
opportunities.
tion route.
The leptocephali (eel larvae) and later glass eels likely follow the inflow
of water
fromcase,
the the
Atlantic
north
of theassessment
British Isles,
through
the NorthorSea
to KatIn
the worst
capacity
balance
becomes
meaningless
even
mistegat,
rather
than
from
the
English
Channel
(Westerberg,
1998).
Glass
eels
arrive
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced.
As
in
the
Kattegat
in
February
and
either
follow
a
front
north
into
Skagerrak
towards
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
the Swedish
west
coasttoand
later west along the Norwegian coast, or a flow into the
allow
depleted
stocks
recover.
eastern Kattegat over the coming months.
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
that
Sound
is more important
for recruitment
than
Danish
2Surveys
shows indicate
that there
arethe
serious
geographical
discrepancies
between on
thethe
one
hand
Straitsfor(Westerberg
& are
Wickström,
2016).
By for
the which
time the
young
eels enter the
areas
which stocks
assessed and
areas
fishing
opportunities
areBaldetic
Sea
through
the
Sound
(between
Sweden
and
Denmark)
and
the
Danish
Straits
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
aroundis May
onwards, they
arebetween
no longer
glassfishing
eel butinhave
transformed
there
oftenand
no distinction
made
vessels
the eastern
Baltic into
and
elvers.
The
young
eels
migrate
slowly
northward
along
the
Swedish
coast
and
from
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
Lithuaniavessels
(Svärdson,
between
fishing1976).
in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
Most of the eels in the Baltic basin are females, and may grow to considerable size. SilAfter
2013 reform,
some participants
the reform
process
obver eelthe
migration
in the Baltic
starts in earlyinautumn,
or even
early believed
summer, that
with an
a peak
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
between September and December. Generally, it peaks earlier further north and east
58
detailed
picture
of the
fishing
situation
a given
fishwinter
stock”.months,
Howand gradually
later
to the
southcapacity
and west.
It stallsaffecting
during the
coldest
ever,
as
noted
above,
the
European
Commission’s
Guidelines
do
not
require
Member
and may resume in spring, with a peak in April/May (WKEELMIGRATION, 2020).
Baltic eel migration
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
12
ePassage
ht fo wthrough
eivrevo the
yrotDanish
cafsitasStraits
a teg occurs
ot elbafrom
eb toSeptember
n lliw srehto
toDecember
dna noissiwith
mmoaCpeak
eht
sini nNovember
oitamrofn(Prigge
i yratneetmal.,
elpp2013).
us etaSilver
uqedaeels
fi dare
efiisometimes
tcer eb ,revcaught
ewoh ,by
nacshrimp
siTh .ntrawlers
oitautis
in the Skagerrak during
.senillate
ediuNovember,
G tnerruc eearly
ht redDecember.
nu deriuqeSilver
r ton seels
i sihfrom
t tuB the
.dedBaltic
ivorp
join eels from the Kattegat-Skagerrak area and follow the northern so-called “Nordic
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
route” through the Norwegian Trench into the Norwegian Sea and southward to
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
the Faroe-Shetland channel towards the Sargasso Sea (Righton et al., 2016; EELIAD
n
o snoisconclusions).
ulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
project
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
Baltic region closures
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
Sweden
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
Commercial fishing for eel was at its peak in the 1950–60s, with catches of around 2
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
500 tonnes. Since then, Swedish catches have gradually declined. The natural recruithguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
ment of eel is very limited in recent years, estimated to less than 10 % of the total
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
production of silver eel (Dekker et al., 2018); but restocking is extensive.
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
n
i liatefishing
d eromfor
ni eel
desis
suforbidden
csid si eusunless
si siThyou
.ecnhave
alab ayspecial
ticapac eel
ehtfishing
fo erupermit.
tcip etarSince
ucca
Today,
oleeffort.
b 6.2 nOf
oitthe
ces
2015, no new permits are being issued, resulting in a gradual decline.win
218 special permits issued in 2020, 76 %, or 166 permits, were for eel fishing in coastal
,tnemwaters.
ssessa eIn
cn2012,
alab the
yticfishery
apac dnon
a kthe
cotwest
s rof coast,
desu snorth
isab laofcih
pargoeGwas
5.3per.2.1
and marine
Torekov,
y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o
g
n
i
h
s
fi
f
o
g
n
i
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d
r
o
f
d
na
manently closed. Recreational fishing for eel was banned in 2007, with the exception
doflusome
ohs dewaters
nimretabove
ed eramigration
seitinutrobarriers.
ppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
In 2019, the reported total catch in Swedish commercial fisheries for eel was 173
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
tonnes, of which the coastal/marine catch was 85 tonnes, or approximately 49 %.
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
Swedish data shows an overall peak in landings in July, August and September, with
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
around 28 % of all catches landed in August. In 2015–2017, around 8 % of the annual
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
landings were made in the months now covered by the closure.
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Life stages exploited: Mainly silver eel; around 15 % yellow eel.
-simHabitat
neve rotargeted:
sselgninCoastal
aem sem
oceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
waters and inland lakes.
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliwCommercial
taht snoisicfishery:
ed ekat Yes,
ot srabout
egana50/50
m seiin
rehinland
sfi rofand
tlucoastal
cffiid ewaters
rom sein
morecent
ceb tiyears.
,tluser a
Recreational fishery: No, with some exceptions above
.revmigration
ocer ot skbarriers.
cots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpClosure:
ahC ni n1oNovember
iger aeS cito
tla31
B eJanuary
ht ni st–rapplies
oper ecto
naall
lablife
ytstages
icapac and
lanoall
itafisheries
n fo weiinver ruO
coastal
and
marine
waters.
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed Migration:
era seitinuJuly
troptopoDecember,
gnihsfi hcwith
ihw aropeak
f saein
raAugust
dna deto
sseOctober;
ssa era smigration
kcots hcihstarts
w rof saera
earlier
further
north
and
east.
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
Sweden is in compliance with the regulation but not with the intent of protecting miedam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
grating eels. By setting the closure during the later months, it affects fewer commercial
gfishers
nihsfi and
esohhas
t dnthe
a aeleast
S htrfinancial
oN eht niimpact.
gnihsfiFishers
esoht ,cinitlSkåne
aB ehtinnithe
gnisouth
hsfi sleare
ssevdisproporneewteb
.saehad
s htoabsigni
tionately affected by the closure. It is not yet clear whether the closure has
-nificant
bo na teffect,
aht devbut
eilecatches
b ssecorhave
p mrbeen
ofer elower
ht ni in
stnthe
apipast
citraptwo
emyears.
os ,mrAlso,
ofer there
3102 ehas
ht rbeen
eft A
some displacement of effort to fish for yellow eel in the Sound – the area most affected
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
by the closure.
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Finland
the
Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation.
however, belimit
rectified
adequate
supplementary
information
is
Finland is This
at thecan,
north-eastern
of theifnatural
distribution
of European
eel; nevprovided.
But
this
is not required
under the
current Guidelines.
ertheless, it
was
historically
widespread.
In 1940–1960,
eel had some importance to
localCommission’s
fisheries and numbers
weredostill
and its
tributaries, some
The
Guidelines
go high
partinofKokemäenjoki
the way towards
acknowledging
this
parts
of
the
Gulf
of
Finland,
mainly
in
the
estuary
of
the
river
Kymijoki
and east of
problem, in the following terms:
the city of Kotka, and it was a common species in the Finnish Archipelago.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
Today,imbalance
hydroelectric
power
plants
causeseparately.
limited access
to almost
all rivers
running
for each
fleet
segment
Aggregated
analyses
across
many
57
into the
Baltic. fisheries
Natural in
eelone
migration
only are
possible
in a few freshwater systems
different
MemberisState
not useful.
near the coast and in the coastal areas of the Baltic. Eel stocks and fisheries in FinnWhile this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
ish inland waters depend almost completely on restocking. There is a very limited
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
commercial fishery, landings were < 1 tonne in 2019, however, inland landings from
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregarecreational fishing can be up to 20 tonnes (2014) but are likely to be lower.
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently
defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
Life stages exploited: Yellow and silver eel.
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
Habitat targeted: Mainly inland waters.
required
under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
Commercial
Yes,
but very limited.
fisheries across fishery:
different
segments
and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This issue is discussed in more detail in
Recreational fishery: Yes.
section 2.6 below.
22
13
Closure: 1 October to 31 January – applies to all fisheries and all life stages in
coastal and inland waters.
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
Inland migration
early. In Vääksynjoki River, peak migration is in
andMigration:
for determining
of fishingstarts
opportunity
May–June, with some migration again in August–October. In Pämpinkoski close to
Ideally,
the
management
areasisfor
Nokia
River,
peak migration
in which
August.fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks
differ
from
the areas for
fishingitsopportunities
are deterFinlandare
is inassessed
compliance
with
the regulation,
andwhich
goes beyond
legal requirements
with
a longerfisheries
closure, which
also applies
in inland
waters.
to protect
mined,
management
becomes
much
more However,
challenging,
leadingeel
to spawning
a greater
migration,
a better match
between
closure
and the migration
patternfishing
is needed.
risk
of overfishing.
Similarly,
whenthe
the
geographical
areas for which
opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
Estonia
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Eel fishing
in Estonia is dominated by inland catches, particularly from Lake Võrtsfishing
opportunities.
järv (94 % of inland catches). In 2019, the total catch was 21.6 tonnes, of which 0.9
In
the worst
theand
capacity
balance
assessment
becomes
even
mistonnes
were case,
coastal
91 % (19.7
tonnes)
came from
Lakemeaningless
Võrtsjärv – or
this
is more
leading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity
will
not
be
identified
or
reduced.
As
than tenfold the historical catches in the lake. In 2019, an estimated 96 % of the Estoanian
result,
it becomes
difficulteels.
for fisheries
managers
take by
decisions
that Less
will
catch
consistedmore
of restocked
The fishing
season to
is over
November.
allow
depleted
stocks
to
recover.
than 1 tonne was reported as recreational landings in the same year.
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Life stages
exploited:
Yellowgeographical
and silver eel.discrepancies between on the one hand
2 shows
that there
are serious
areas
for which
stocksInland
are assessed
and areas for
which
fishing
opportunities
Habitat
targeted:
waters, particularly
Lake
Vörtsjärv
in central
Estonia. are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Commercial fishery: Yes, inland catches dominate; limited catches along the coast.
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
Recreational
fishery:
Yes. Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
those
fishing in the
western
between
vessels
fishing in the
Baltic,– applies
those fishing
in the North
and those
Closure:
1 November–31
January
to all fisheries
and allSea
life stages
in fishing
coastal
waters
only.
in both seas.
Migration:
Silver eelsome
in theparticipants
Narva River basin
late April
to October,
After
the 2013: reform,
in themigrate
reformfrom
process
believed
that an obwith
peaks
in
May/June
and
September
(Priit
Bernotas,
pers.
comm.,
2020).
ligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
14
eEstonia
ht fo wisein
ivrcompliance
evo yrotcafwith
sitasthe
a tregulation
eg ot elba but
eb not
ton with
lliw the
srehintent,
to dnaasnthe
oissclosure
immoCperieht
od starts after the main migration and the fishing season are over. In addition, a coastal
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
fishing ban will have a very limited effect, as there is no targeted commercial fishery in
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
coastal waters and coastal catches are likely to be less than 5 % of the total landings.
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
Latvia
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Historically, most of the eel fishing took place in coastal waters. In 1920–1930s, landno snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ings amounted to 100–130 tonnes of eels per year. Today, eel landings (bycatch only)
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
in the coastal waters have
fallen to less than 300 kg per year – only 4.4 % of the total
75
.lufesu ton era etatS 5rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
commercial landings of just over 6 tonnes . Recreational catches may be up to 4
stonnes,
kcots tnbut
ereff
id .e.i( srecreational
eirehsfi tnerecatches
ffid fo nin
oit2019
agergg
a eh258.4
t sefiikg,
tned
i ecivdtaken
a siht einlihthe
W
licensed
were
mainly
trestocked
nemges hinland
cae fo tlakes.
nemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
fishing
sOnly
a stnsome
emgesLatvian
teefl ehinland
t fo ynwaters
am sa are
hcuaccessible
msani ,gnito
daeel
elsitoday,
m si siand
ht ,ycommercial
letanutrofnU
.noit
in
the
rivers
is
prohibited.
At
present,
commercial
eel
fishing
takes
place
in
12
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltninland
erruc
hlakes,
guohand
tla( lin
uferivers
su ebbetween
ton yamthese
etatSlakes
rebmthat
eM are
enoinaccessible
ni seirehsfifor
tneeel
reffmigration.
id ynam ssTotal
orca
commercial
catches
in
inland
lakes
were
5.82
tonnes
in
2019,
and
consisted
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu mainly
deriuqof
er
restocked
eel.
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Life stages exploited: Mixed fishery of yellow and silver eel > 50 cm.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Habitat targeted: Inland lakes.
,tnemssesfishery:
sa ecnaYes,
lab inland
yticapcatches
ac dna mainly
kcots rin
ofrestocked
desu sisalakes;
b lacih
argcaught
oeG 5.3
Commercial
allpeel
in.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
coastal waters are bycatch in other fisheries.
dluoRecreational
hs denimretefishery:
d era seYes,
itinumainly
troppoingrestocked
nihsfi hcihlakes
w roinland.
f saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
Closure: 1 November to 31 January – applies to all fisheries and all life
-retstages
ed erainsecoastal
itinutrwaters
oppo gonly.
nihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-ropMigration:
po gnihsfiEel
hcilandings
hw rof s–abycatch
era lacih– pinarcoastal
goeg ehfisheries
t nehw peak
,ylralinimJuly
iS .and
gnihAugust,
sfirevo fo ksir
indicating that this is the peak migration period. Inland monitoring shows that
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
most of the silver eels reach river outlets to the sea in spring time (April and May,
dnasometimes
yticapac tJune),
eefl newith
ewtaebsecond
ecnalapeak
b lauintcAugust–October
a eht ssessa ot ewhen
lbissothe
pmmain
i ylraewater
n semoceb ti
seitinuto
trotell
ppwhen
o gnihsfi
level fluctuations occur (Jānis Bajinskis, pers. comm., 2020). It is .harder
-simmigration
neve ro really
sselgnstarts
inaeminserivers
moceaccessible
b tnemsseto
ssaeel
ecor
nalakes
lab ytmore
icapainland,
c eht ,ebut
sac assuming
tsrow eht nI
from catch data it is mainly in April to June.
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lLatvia
liw tahistinsncompliance
oisiced ekawith
t ot sthe
regaregulation
nam seirebut
hsfi not
rof with
tlucffi
id intent,
erom sas
emthe
ocesilver
b ti ,tleel
usemira
the
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d
w
o
lla
gration has tailed off when the closed period begins. Either way, a coastal fishing ban will
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rhave
etpahaCvery
ni nlimited
oiger aeffect,
eS citlas
aB there
eht niissno
trotargeted
per ecnalcommercial
ab yticapacfishery
lanoitain
n fcoastal
o weivewaters
r ru O
and most of the recreational fishing also takes place inland.
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-Lithuania
ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
Historically, there was a large eel fishery in the Curonian Lagoon, but most likely
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
no targeted eel fishery in inland waters. In Lithuania, eel occurs naturally primarily
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
in coastal habitats and the Curonian Lagoon, but the population is in steep decline
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
(ICES CRs, 2020). In inland waters, its abundance is dependent on restocking.
.saes htob ni
-Today,
bo na tcommercial
aht deveilebfishing
ssecorpismnot
rofeallowed
r eht ni along
stnapithe
citracoast
p emor
os in
,mrthe
oferlakes.
3102 The
eht rcomeft A
mercial
catches
come
from
a
limited
trapnet
fishery
targeting
migrating
silver
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noiteels
agil
kco2020.
ts hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
-From
woHCR8to5.”ICES
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
5
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
in some
rivers andand
in the
Curonian
Lagoon,
according
to national
legislation
the
Commission
others
will not
be ablewhich
to get
a satisfactory
overview
of the
is classifiedThis
as inland
waters. be
Thisrectified
licensediffishery
is only
allowed from
15 March to
situation.
can, however,
adequate
supplementary
information
is
1 June. According
ICES
(2020d),under
reported
catches Guidelines.
for 2018 were 20 tonnes and for
provided.
But this to
is not
required
the current
2019, 9 tonnes; but there is a discrepancy with national data provided to us: 9.8 and
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
4.6 tonnes respectively (Linas Ložys, pers. comm., 2020). Bycatch landings in coastal
problem, in the following terms:
waters during the same period were 12 kg in 2018 and 6 kg in 2019. Reported recreaindicators
intended
to (ICES,
be used2020d).
in combination to draw conclusions on
tional The
catches
in 2019are
were
6 tonnes
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
57
fisheries in
one Member
aredivision
not useful.
Lifedifferent
stages exploited:
Yellow
and silver State
eel; the
is around
25/75 %.
22
15
Habitat
targeted:
Freshwater
lakes and rivers,
particularly
in the (i.e.
Nemunas
While
this advice
identifies
the aggregation
of different
fisheries
different stocks
River
basin,
but
also
the
Curonian
Lagoon.
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
(as Commercial
defined by vessel
length
andtargeted
main gear
type)
is sufficient
such aggregafishery:
Yes, but
fishing
in coastal
waterstoisavoid
banned,
only
bycatch landings
inland
catches dominate.
tion.
Unfortunately,
thisareis allowed;
misleading,
inasmuch
as many of the fleet segments as
currently
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Recreational fishery: Yes, angling and spearfishing.Thus, while aggregated analyses
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
Closure: Commercial eel fishing in coastal waters is completely prohibited,
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
but allowed in some inland waters, including the Curonian Lagoon. Recreational
fisheries
across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
angling is allowed.
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
Migration: Silver eel migration inland starts in May/June and continues
section
2.6 below.
into the autumn, with a peak through Klaipeda Strait in October, tailing
off in November (Lithuanian CR to ICES, 2020). In Eastern Lithuania,
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basislakes
usedtakes
for stock
and
capacity
balance
assessment,
outward
migration from
place in
spring
at high
water level
andperiods,
for determining
of
fishing
opportunity
usually in March–May (Linas Ložys, pers. comm., 2020).
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
Lithuania
closed
all targeted
eel life stages,
aside
match
thehas
areas
covered
by stockcommercial
assessments.fishing
Whenfor
theallgeographical
areas
forfrom
whicha
limited licensed inland fishery for migrating silver eels, going beyond the legal requirestocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determents. However, allowing recreational angling in all waters and the legal status of the
mined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
Curonian Lagoon as inland waters indicate that Lithuania is not in full compliance derisk
Similarly,
theRegulation
geographical
areas specifies
for which
fishing
opporspiteof
itsoverfishing.
ambitious closures.
Thewhen
current
(2021/92),
that
“Any targeted,
tunities
differoffrom
the areas
forbewhich
capacity
balance
assessed,
incidentalare
anddetermined
recreational fishery
European
eel shall
prohibited
in Union
watersisof
the ICES
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
area and brackish waters such as estuaries, coastal lagoons and transitional waters…”.
fishing opportunities.
Poland
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misEel fishing
has a long
Poland, and
takes
in lakes,orrivers,
coastal
leading,
increasing
the tradition
risk that in
overcapacity
will
not place
be identified
reduced.
As
open
waters,
and
two
brackish
water
basins:
the
Szczecin
and
Vistula
lagoons.
Until
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
the late
1950s, Polish
fisheries were based almost exclusively on natural recruitallow
depleted
stocks eel
to recover.
ment. Later, extensive restocking programmes were set up, releasing mainly glass eels
Our
review
of and
national
capacity
balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
in many
lakes
in both
lagoons.
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
Inlandfor
and
coastal
fisheries
target both
silver for
andwhich
yellowfishing
eel. Total
commercialare
landareas
which
stocks
are assessed
and areas
opportunities
deings
for
2019
were
167.5
tonnes.
Of
these,
around
2/3
were
taken
in
marine
waters
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
(including
lagoons)
and 1/3 inmade
inland
waters.vessels
Reported
recreational
landings
in 2018
there
is often
no distinction
between
fishing
in the eastern
Baltic
and
and
2019
were
30
tonnes,
bringing
total
reported
landings
up
to
197.5
tonnes.
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
Life stages
in both
seas. exploited: Yellow and silver eel > 50 cm.
Habitat targeted: Mainly the coastal lagoons, but also inland rivers and lakes.
After
the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obCommercial
fishery:
Yes. by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
ligation
to present
capacity
detailed
picture of
the fishing
situation
affecting a given fish stock”.58 HowRecreational
fishery:
Yes, atcapacity
least 15 %
of total landings.
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
16
ehtClosures:
fo weivre1voNovember
yrotcafsi2020–31
tas a tegJanuary
ot elb2021
a eb for
toncoastal
lliw swaters,
rehto dincluding
na noissthe
imm
oC eht
lagoons.
si nThere
oitamisroalso
fni ayr4-month
atnemelclosure
ppus etfor
auqinland
eda fiwaters
defiitfrom
cer eb1 December
,revewoh ,to
na31
c sMarch.
iTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
Migration: The ICES Special Request Advice suggests a Baltic Sea migration period of
sihtAugust
gnigdto
elwNovember,
onkca sdrwith
awota ypeak
aw einhtSeptember/October
fo trap og od senand
iledsome
iuG sspring
’noissimigration
mmoC eTh
after winter dormancy.
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
n
o snoiis
suin
lcncompliance
oc ward ot with
noitathe
nibregulation
moc ni desand
u ebgoes
ot dbeyond
ednetnithe
era required
srotacidn3i months
eTh by
Poland
adding
a
4-month
closure
for
inland
waters.
However,
neither
of
the
closures
takes
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi place
5 silver eel and therefore falls short of the intention to protect
during peak migration 7of
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
eel migration. In fact, since the closures were implemented, Polish catches have been
sincreasing
kcots tnerinstead
effid .e.of
i( sdecreasing.
eirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-Germany
agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sGermany
a stnemghas
es teaefl
ehthistory
fo ynam
a hcumsaeel
ni ,fishing
gnidaelsand
im srestocking
i siht ,yletaactivities,
nutrofnUgoing
.noit
long
of sorganised
sback
esylamore
na dethan
tagergg
a
e
l
i
h
w
,
s
u
Th
.
k
c
o
t
s
h
s
fi
e
n
o
n
a
h
t
e
r
o
m
t
e
g
r
a
t
d
e
n
fi
e
d
y
l
t
n
e
r ru c
100 years. It remains an important fishery in some inland regions.
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
lGerman
audividneel
i fomanagement
sesylana deis
tagdivided
ergga ,)into
2 hpnine
argarEel
apbuManagement
s )2(22 elcitrUnits
A red(EMUs),
nu deriuand
qer
there
is
great
regional
autonomy
on
fisheries,
so
rules
and
regulations
may
vary
subna teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
stantially.
n
i liated erThere
om niare
destwo
sucsifederal
d si eustates
ssi siTh(Länder)
.ecnalabwith
yticaapaBaltic
c eht coastline:
fo erutcipMecklenetarucca
burg-Western Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Most of the main rivers flow into the North Sea. In the Baltic, the main river is the
,tnthe
emsPolish
sessa border,
ecnalabwhich
yticapflows
ac dninto
a kco
ts rOder
of deLagoon
su sisab(the
laciGerman
hpargoeG
5.3.2
.1
Oder on
the
name
for
y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o
g
n
i
h
s
fi
f
o
g
n
i
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d
r
o
f
d
n
a
the Szczecin Lagoon) – one of the largest coastal lagoons in Europe.
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hInland
cihw rand
of sacoastal
era lacihfisheries
pargoeg target
eht nehboth
W .ssilver
tnemsand
sessayellow
kcots yeel.
b deThe
revolandings
c saera ehreported
t hctam
-to
retICES
ed erahave
seitibeen
nutroincomplete
ppo gnihsfifor
hcithe
hw past
rof sthree
aera eyears,
ht mordue
f reto
ffidregional
dessessadata
era collecskcots
tion
and
reporting
structures
for
eel
and
inland
fisheries.
In
2016,
the
last
year
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,dewith
nim
-full
ropreporting,
po gnihsfi commercial
hcihw rof salandings
era lacihpwere
argoeover
g eh200
t netonnes
hw ,ylraand
limirecreational
S .gnihsfirevolandings
fo ksir
,were
desse258
ssa stonnes
i ecnala–bgreater
yticapathan
c hcicommercial
hw rof saeralandings.
eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Life stages exploited: Yellow and silver eel.
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Habitat targeted: Mainly freshwater lakes and rivers, but also some coastal waters.
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA Commercial
.decuder ro fishery:
defiitnedYes.
i eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliwRecreational
taht snoisicefishery:
d ekat oYes,
t srabout
eganam
irehsas
fi ror
ofgreater
tlucffiithan
d erocommercial
m semoceblandings.
ti ,tluser a
thesesame
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
Closure: 1 November 2020–31 January 2021, including both commercial and
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retprecreational
ahC ni noigfisheries
er aeS cin
itlcoastal
aB eht waters.
ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnaMigration:
h eno eht nPeak
o nemigration
ewteb seifor
cnasilver
percseel
id in
lacthe
ihpBaltic
argoecoastal
g suoirestates
s era iserSeptember
eht taht swohs 2
-ed to
erNovember,
a seitinutrobut
ppoit gstarts
nihsfiinhAugust
cihw roand
f satapers
era dnoff
a din
essDecember,
essa era skwith
cotsanother
hcihw rof saera
,elppeak
maxeinrothe
F .spring,
dessessin
a sMarch
i yticato
paJune.
c hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
but.conly
eGermany
dam noitiscninitscompliance
id on semitwith
emosthe
si eregulation
reht ,esroW
itlaBsomewhat
nretsew ehwith
t ni the
gnihintent,
sfi esohast
the main migration is just ending when the closure begins. The regional catch reporting
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
system for eel is not helpful on the EU level. Without complete landings data after 2016,
.saes htob ni
it is essentially impossible to assess the effects of the closures and other management
-measures.
bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Denmark
the
Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation.
can,peninsula
however, borders
be rectified
adequate
supplementary
information
is
Denmark’sThis
Jutland
bothifthe
Baltic and
North seas, and
the Danish
provided.
Butconsists
this is not
requiredislands
underin
thethe
current
Guidelines.
Archipelago
of several
Danish
Straits connecting the Baltic
Sea proper
and the Guidelines
Kattegat todo
thegowest,
Zealand,
Funen,
Als and LangeThe
Commission’s
partincluding
of the way
towards
acknowledging
this
land.
All
of
the
silver
eels
from
the
Baltic
Sea
pass
through
Öresund
or the Danish
problem, in the following terms:
Straits on their spawning migration to the Sargasso Sea. Historically, thousands of
indicators
are intended
towaters.
be used in combination to draw conclusions on
tonnesThe
of eel
were caught
in Danish
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
57
Today,different
coastal fisheries
both
silver and
yellow
eel.useful.
The Danish
fishery takes place
fisheriestarget
in one
Member
State
are not
in the Danish Straits and the Sound between Sweden and Denmark, where migrating
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
eels pass mainly in October and November. In 2019, commercial landings were 183
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
tonnes and recreational landings 105 tonnes, resulting in total reported landings of 288
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregatonnes (ICES, 2020d). Danish fisheries statistics show that total commercial landings
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
in 2020 were 181 tonnes, of which 85 % were caught in the Baltic Sea. The proportion
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
of yellow eel in the landings has increased since 2017, from 25 to above 40 %, but it is
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
mainly caused by reduced silver eel landings.
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
fisheries
across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
Life stages exploited: Both yellow and silver eel; roughly a 40/60 % split.
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
Habitat targeted: Mainly Baltic coastal waters (≈ 80 % of the landings).
section
2.6 below.
22
17
Commercial fishery: Yes, about 2/3 of total landings.
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis
for
stock
and
capacity balance assessment,
Recreational
fishery:
Yes,used
about
1/3
of total
landings.
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Closure: 1 December 2020–28 February 2021 – applies to all life stages
Ideally,
thefisheries
management
areas
for
whichwaters.
fishing opportunities are determined should
and all
in coastal
and
marine
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
Migration: Passage through the Danish Straits occurs from September to December
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are deterwith a peak in October/November, and a less pronounced spring migration in March
mined,
fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
to April.
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities
determined
differwith
fromthe
theintent
areasoffor
which
capacity
balance
is assessed,
Denmarkare
is not
in compliance
the
regulation,
since
the closure
is set
largely
afternearly
the migration
period.
A closure
in Danish
coastal
waters
be really
it
becomes
impossible
to assess
the actual
balance
between
fleetcould
capacity
and
effective
in
terms
of
protecting
migrating
silver
eels
from
the
entire
Baltic
region,
as
the
fishing opportunities.
vast majority of the Danish fishery is in Baltic marine waters.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Baltic regional conclusions
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
datathere
reported
for thegeographical
Baltic region
in 2019 are between
incomplete.
Considering
2Landings
shows that
are serious
discrepancies
on the
one hand
the
reported
German
landings
in
2016
(ICES,
2020d),
we
estimate
760
tonnes
of
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities
are decommercialand
landings
342hand
tonnes
of recreational
landings,isresulting
total
Baltic
termined,
on theand
other
areas
for which capacity
assessed.in
For
example,
landings
of
more
than
1
100
tonnes.
Most
of
these
catches
consist
of
silver
eels
which
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
are taken
during
their
spawning
migration.
the north-east
Baltic
region, eel catchthose
fishing
in the
western
Baltic.
Worse, In
there
is sometimes
no distinction
made
es
overall
are
limited
and
depend
almost
solely
on
restocking
efforts,
butthose
in thefishing
south
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and
there
areseas.
substantial catches in Poland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark.
in
both
All thethe
Baltic
have set closures
at least
three consecutive
After
2013Member
reform, States
some participants
in thefor
reform
process
believed thatmonths.
an obOnly Finland
and Lithuania
gonesegment
further,would
with closed
of 4 months
ligation
to present
capacity have
by fleet
resultperiods
in “a more
precise and
58
all year respectively.
Aside
from
Finland,
the three-month
cover
coastal
wadetailed
picture of the
fishing
capacity
situation
affecting aclosures
given fish
stock”.
Howters only,
in line
withthe
theEuropean
Regulation
for EU and Guidelines
ICES area waters.
ever,
as noted
above,
Commission’s
do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
18
eEven
ht fothough
weivrevthey
o yrohave
tcafsnot
itas reported
a teg ot ealbfull
a ebclosure,
ton lliwnosrtargeted
ehto dnafishing
noissiminmomarine
C eht
swaters
i noitais
mallowed
rofni yrain
tnEstonia
emelppuor
s eLatvia
tauqedeither.
a fi defiSome
itcer ecountries,
b ,revewohlike
,naLatvia
c siTh and
.noitLithautis
uania have also greatly
.senlimited
ilediuG their
tnerruinland
c eht rfisheries,
ednu deriwith
uqer many
ton si areas
siht tuclosed
B .dedto
ivoeel
rp
fishing all year. Poland has a 4-month closure for inland waters from 1 December
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
to 31 March. There are other restrictions, such as the ban of recreational fishing in
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Sweden, but otherwise all of the countries allow both commercial and recreational
n
o snoisduring
ulcnoc parts
ward of
ot the
noityear
anibin
mosome
c ni dwaters.
esu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
fishing
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
In most of the countries,
75
.lufthe
esu closures
ton era eapply
tatS reto
bmalleMfisheries,
eno ni seincluding
irehsfi tnerecreational,
reffid
but Lithuania still allows angling in coastal waters and also allows eel fishing in the
sCuronian
kcots tnerLagoon.
effid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-When
agerggwe
a hccompare
us diova the
ot tmonths
neicffiuschosen
si )epytfor
raethe
g nclosures
iam dna with
htgnethe
l lesmigration
sev yb denperiods
fied sa(
in
the
Baltic
region
(see
Figure
1,
page
19),
it
is
clear
that
the
majority
of
the
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnUBaltic
.noit
sMember
esylana dStates
etagerhave
gga elclosed
ihw ,sutheir
Th .kfisheries
cots hsfi after
eno nthe
ahtmain
erommigration,
tegrat denfiand
ed ythe
ltnemain
r ru c
fishing
season,
is
already
over.
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
Where inland fisheries dominate, a three-month closure in marine and coastal wana teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ters has little effect. However, in the countries with the greatest landings – Germany,
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Denmark, Poland and Sweden – catches in marine waters are more substantial or
.woleb 6.2 noitces
dominate
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
For countries like Denmark, Poland and Sweden, a full closure in marine waters would
ytsilver
inutroeels
ppofrom
gnihsthe
fi foeastern
gninimBaltic
retedMember
rof dna
protect migrating eels effectively, allowing
dStates
luohs to
den
imretedtheir
era semigration
itinutroppthrough
o gnihsfithe
hciDanish
hw rof straits
saera tnand
emethe
ganSound
am ehttowards
,yllaedI
continue
hthe
cihSargasso
w rof saeSea.
ra laAciclosure
hpargoebetter
g eht nmatched
ehW .stnwith
emsthe
sessmigration
a kcots ybperiod
derevowould
c saeraalso
ehtmake
hctama
-real
retedifference.
d era seitinFinally,
utropponly
o gnSweden
ihsfi hchas
ihwbanned
rof saerrecreational
a eht morf fishing
reffid dfor
esseel.
essaConsidering
era skcots
species, a complete closure of recreational
rthat
etaeEuropean
rg a ot gneel
idais
el a,gCritically
nignellahEndangered
c erom hcum
semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
fishing in the region until the stock shows a strong recovery is called for.
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
DEC
22
19
NOV
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided. But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
OCT
Figure 1. This schematic compares the main migration periods with the national three-month closures in the Baltic Sea Member States.
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
problem, in the following terms:
JUL
AUG
Closed throughout – no commercial fishery but angling allowed
SEP
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregation. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 below.
JUN
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
APR
MAY
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
MAR
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
JAN
Closure periods
FEB
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
DENMARK
GERMANY
POLAND
LITHUANIA
LATVIA
ESTONIA
ClientEarth p. 6
FINLAND
Guidelines, p. 4
58
SWEDEN
57
(all life stages)
Silver eel
PEAK
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
20
eht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa eramsstikmecots hcihw rof saera
rea
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah r©ehD to eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Atlantic eel migration
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided. But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
Glass eel arrival in the Atlantic area follows a south to north gradient. It starts in
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
do coasts
go partof of
the way
towards
acknowledging
this
October
and November
along the
Portugal
and
Spain, reaches
France, the
UK and Ireland
in November,
and progresses later into the English Channel and
problem,
in the following
terms:
the North Sea (ICES WKEELMIGRATION, 2020). In Germany, glass eel recruitThe indicators
are and
intended
to beJune,
used with
in combination
to draw
conclusions
on
ment starts
in February
lasts until
a peak in May.
The main
glass eel
imbalance
for to
each
segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
migration
lasts four
fivefleet
months.
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
Glass eels and elvers appear in estuaries of the south-west European Atlantic coast
While
this advice
identifies
aggregation
different
fisheries
(i.e.peaks
different
stocks
throughout
the year,
but thethe
recruitment
is of
typically
seasonal,
with
between
targeted)
unhelpful,
it implies
thatElie
ensuring
separate1994;
treatment
segment
Novemberasand
March (Weber,
1986;
and Rochard,
Gascuelofeteach
al., 1995;
(as
defined
by
vessel
length
and
main
gear
type)
is
sufficient
to
avoid
such
aggregaDesaunay and Guerault, 1997; de Casamajor et al., 1999).
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
The peak of
silver eel
migration
startsone
in fish
the autumn
months
(September
to analyses
currently
defined
target
more than
stock. Thus,
while
aggregated
December)
across
Europe
(Righton
et
al.,
2016),
stalls
during
the
coldest
winter
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
months, and may resume in early spring. Monitoring and other literature indicate
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
that silver eel migration in coastal, transitional and marine waters along the westfisheries
across
different
Member States
get an
coast of the
EU takes
placesegments
in Augustand
to November,
with amay
peakbein crucial
Octoberto(ICES
accurate
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
WKEELMIGRATION, 2020).
section 2.6 below.
22
21
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Atlantic region closures
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
Ireland
match
the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
European
is widespread
in the
Ireland.
large lake-wetted
areas, in particular,
stocks
are eel
assessed
differ from
areasThe
for which
fishing opportunities
are deterare preferred
habitat
for growing
eels (Moriarty,
2003).
Glass eelleading
and elver
is
mined,
fisheries
management
becomes
much more
challenging,
to fishing
a greater
prohibited
by law inSimilarly,
Ireland (1959
Act). Theareas
commercial
eel fishing
fishery,opporwhich
risk
of overfishing.
whenFisheries
the geographical
for which
involvedare
around
200 fisheres,
in 2009,
as part
of the balance
implementation
of
tunities
determined
differ was
fromclosed
the areas
for which
capacity
is assessed,
Ireland’s
Eelnearly
Management
Plan.
thebalance
only fishing
for European
eel now
it
becomes
impossible
to Consequently,
assess the actual
between
fleet capacity
and
is for monitoring
purposes (Weldon et al., 2020). Any catches in recreational rod
fishing
opportunities.
angling have to be released alive.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
Life stages exploited: None
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
Habitat
targeted:
allow
depleted
stocksNone
to recover.
fishery: No
OurCommercial
review of national
capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Recreational
fishery:
No
2 shows
that there
are serious
geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas
for
which
stocks
are
assessed
andinareas
for which fishing opportunities are deClosure: All year, for all fisheries and
all waters.
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Migration period glass eel: May to August, with a peak in July.
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
Migration
silver eel:Baltic.
AugustWorse,
to December,
a peak no distinction made
those
fishing period
in the western
there iswith
sometimes
in
September
and
October
(Righton
et
al.,
2016;
Poole
et
1990).
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the al.,
North
Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
In Ireland, all eel fishing has been prohibited since 2009. It clearly goes beyond the legal
requirements
the three-month
closure, in
and
of allbelieved
life stages
including
After
the 2013for
reform,
some participants
theprotects
reformeels
process
that
an obthe spawning
migration.
ligation
to present
capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
22
eDenmark
ht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
sOn
i nothe
itaNorth
mrofniSea
yracoast
tnemof
elpDenmark,
pus etauqglass
eda feels
i decoming
fiitcer eup
b ,rthrough
evewoh the
,nacEnglish
siTh .nChannel
oitautis
.senhowever,
ilediuG tniserforbidden.
ruc eht redThe
nu dcommercial
eriuqer tonand
si sirecreational
ht tuB .dedivfishorp
arrive. Glass eel fishing,
target
series
iht gfor
nigeel
delw
onkcboth
a sdrayellow
wot yaand
w esilver
ht fo eels,
trapand
og more
od senthan
iledi90
uG%s’of
noall
issilandings
mmoC eare
Th
taken in marine waters. The same is true for recreational
catches,
which
accounts
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melbofor
rp
one third of total landings.
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
North
yCommercial
nam ssorca eel
sesyfisheries
lana detaon
gerthe
ggA
.yletaSea
rapeside
s tnof
emDenmark,
ges teefl hincluding
cae rof ecnSkagerrak
alabmi and
7
5
the Kattegat, are much more
.lufesulimited.
ton eraInet2019
atS rand
ebm2020,
eM enthe
o ntotal
i seircommercial
ehsfi tnerefflandings
id
were 34 tonnes and 21 tonnes, respectively. This is equivalent to 18 and 11 % of the total
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
Danish commercial eel landings. More than 60 % of the landings were made in the
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
Kattegat, which is the only area where yellow eel fishing dominates (> 65 % of landings).
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa sLife
tnem
ges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
stages exploited: : Yellow and silver eel; < 40 % silver eel.
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
but some inland.
hguHabitat
ohtla( lutargeted:
fesu eb tAlmost
on yamsolely
etatSmarine
rebmeand
M ecoastal
no ni waters,
seirehsfi
tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudCommercial
ividni fo sefishery:
sylana Yes,
detalicensed.
gergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na Recreational
teg ot laicurcfishery:
eb yamYes,
setabout
atS re1/3
bmofeM
dnlandings.
a stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
total
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Closure: 1 December 2020–28 February 2021 – applies to all life stages and all
.woleb 6.2 noitces
fisheries in coastal and marine waters. There is a longer closure for recreational
fisheries from 1 October to 31 July.
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
Migration period glass eel: March to May (Skagerrak).
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
dluoMigration
hs denimrperiod
eted ersilver
a seitieel:
nutrSeptember
oppo gnihto
sfiDecember
hcihw rof in
saethe
ra tNorth
nemeSea
ganaregion,
m eht ,yllaedI
with a spring migration in March to May, peaking in April.
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-In
rethe
ted Kattegat,
era seitinSkagerrak
utroppo gand
nihsthe
fi hNorth
cihw rSea
of swaters,
aera ehthere
t morisf more
reffidoverlap
dessessbetween
a era skcthe
ots
rmigration
etaerg a operiod
t gnidaand
el ,gthe
nigclosure,
nellahc ebut
romnot
hcenough.
um semoOverall,
ceb tneDanish
meganalandings
m seirehhave
sfi ,dfallen
enim
-sharply
roppo gsince
nihsfi2016,
hcihbut
w rthis
of saiserpart
a lacofihapamore
rgoeglong-term
eht nehwtrend;
,ylralirecreational
miS .gnihsfilandings
revo fo kare
sir
,stable
dessesor
sa even
si ecnincreasing
alab yticadespite
pac hcihthe
w rlonger
of saerclosure.
a eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Germany
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
The Wadden Sea, one of Europe’s most productive and diverse coastal areas, stretches
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
along the entire German North Sea coastline, bordered by the federal states of SchlesA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
swig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, and includes several larger river estuaries. Eel used to
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
be caught regularly in the Wadden Sea but has declined steadily and is now practically
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
absent. It is still regularly caught in the German rivers Ems, Weser, Elbe and Eider. For
rmore
etpahinformation
C ni noigeron
aeSGerman
citlaB eeel
ht fisheries,
ni stropesee
r ecthe
nalasection
b yticaunder
pac lanBaltic
oitanregion
fo weiclosures.
ver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed Life
era sstages
eitinutexploited:
roppo gniYellow
hsfi hcand
ihw silver
rof saeel.
era dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpHabitat
maxe rotargeted:
F .dessessMainly
a si ytifreshwater
capac hcihlakes
w rofand
saerrivers,
a dnabut
h realso
hto coastal
eht no waters.
dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
Yes
edaCommercial
m noitcnitsifishery:
d on sem
itemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihRecreational
sfi esoht dnafishery:
aeS htrYes,
oN eabout
ht ni the
gnihsame
sfi esor
ohgreater
t ,citlaBthan
eht commercial
ni gnihsfi sllandings.
essev neewteb
.safisheries
es htob ni
Closure: 1 November 2020–31 January 2021, including all life stages and all
-boinnacoastal
taht dand
eveimarine
leb ssecwaters.
orp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dnaMigration
esicerp eperiod
rom aglass
“ ni teel:
luseGlass
r dlueels
ow arrive
tnemin
geMarch
s teefltoyJune,
b ytiwith
capaacpeak
tnesinerApril
p otand
noMay.
itagil
85
hsfi nesilver
vig a eel:
gnitSeptember
ceffa noitautotiDecember
s yticapac in
gnthe
ihsfi
eht fSea
o erregion,
utcip deliated
-woMigration
H .” kcotsperiod
North
rebwith
meMa espring
riuqermigration
ton od seinniMarch
lediuGtos’n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
e
h
t
,
e
v
o
b
a
deton sa ,reve
May, peaking in April.
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Germany is in compliance with the regulation but only partially with the intent, as there
the
Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
is only some overlap with silver eel migration. It is unclear whether the closure covers
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
all fisheries. It is also impossible to assess whether the closures have had any effect on
provided.
But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
landings, as German landings data to ICES after 2016 are incomplete.
22
23
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
The Netherlands
problem,
in the following terms:
Eel fishing and eel aquaculture are both important in the Netherlands, and there is also
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
a strong culinary tradition. Eel landings have been increasing over recent years, comimbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
pared with the reference period for the Eel Regulation 2004–2006.
In 2019, landings of
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
yellow and silver eel were 484 tonnes, of which 4 tonnes were caught in marine waters.
While
this advice
identifies
thewere
aggregation
of to
different
fisheries
different
stocks
Recreational
landings
in 2016
estimated
24 tonnes.
As a (i.e.
voluntary
measure,
targeted)
as unhelpful,
it implies
that ensuring
separate
treatment
of each segment
anglers should
practice catch
and release,
but there
is no control
and enforcement.
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaThe Netherlands
applied
in the
its national
Eel Mantion.
Unfortunately,
this aisnation-wide
misleading, three-month
inasmuch asclosure
many of
fleet segments
as
agement
Plan
(EMP)
long
before
the
EU
decision
in
2017.
However,
as
a
test
the
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated case,
analyses
Frisian many
inlanddifferent
fishers implemented
a quota
system
in 2011.
are alacross
fisheries in one
Member
State
may In
notthis
be area,
usefulthey
(although
lowed
to
catch
36.6
ton
annually
regardless
of
the
season.
Other
regions
are
currently
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
exploringacross
possibilities
to implement
this Member
system. Since
2011,
several
large rivers
fisheries
different
segments and
States
may
be crucial
to getand
an
waterbodies
in
inland
waters
are
closed
for
fisheries
due
to
pollution
(dioxins).
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 below.
Life stages exploited: Mainly yellow eel.
Habitat
targeted: Mainly
a small
eelbalance
fishery inassessment,
coastal waters.
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basisinland
used waters;
for stock
andtargeted
capacity
andCommercial
for determining
of Yes,
fishing
opportunity
fishery:
inland
catches of yellow eel dominate.
Ideally,
the management
areasrod
forfishing;
whichcatch
fishing
opportunities
Recreational
fishery: Yes,
and
release only. are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
Closure: 1 September–1 December, all waters and all fisheries.
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are deterMigration
period
glass eel: February
June,more
with achallenging,
peak in April leading
to mid-May.
mined,
fisheries
management
becomes to
much
to a greater
riskMigration
of overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporperiod silver eel: Mainly in August to November, with a peak
tunities
are determined
theRiver
areasBasin
for which
capacity
balance is assessed,
in October,
but a studydiffer
in the from
Schelder
observed
migration
from Julynearly
to January
(Verhelst
al., 2018).
it becomes
impossible
toetassess
the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
The Netherlands are following the law and the intent with its three-month closure;
In
the worst
theby
capacity
assessment
becomes
meaningless
or even
misit even
goes case,
beyond
closingbalance
all freshwater
fisheries.
Despite
this, catches
are
inleading,
risk that
not eel.
be identified or reduced. As
creasing increasing
– probably the
because
theyovercapacity
mainly targetwill
yellow
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
Belgium
allow
depleted stocks to recover.
In Belgium, both commercial and recreational glass eel fisheries are forbidden by
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
law. The only glass eel fishery is carried out by the Flemish government, previously
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
for restocking in inland waters in Flanders, and now only for monitoring purposes.
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
on the other
areas forarewhich
capacity
is assessed.
For example,
In marine and
and coastal
waters,hand
eel catches
negligible,
as there
is no targeted
fishthere
is
often
no
distinction
made
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
eastern
Baltic
and
ing, only bycatch. Since 2006, commercial eel fishing is no longer permitted in inland
those
in the
western Baltic.
is sometimes
noand
distinction
made
waters.fishing
The only
recreational
fishingWorse,
allowedthere
is with
rod and line,
in Wallonia,
it
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
is forbidden to catch eels since 2017. The 30 tonnes in recreational landings reported
in
to both
ICESseas.
in 2019 is from recreational fishing in Flemish waters.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obLife stages exploited: Recreational catches of yellow and silver eel.
ligation
to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
Habitat
targeted:
waters
in Flanders
andaffecting
Brussels regions.
detailed
picture
of theInland
fishing
capacity
situation
a given fish stock”.58 However,
as noted above,
theNo,
European
Commission’s
Guidelines do not require Member
Commercial
fishery:
only bycatch
in coastal waters.
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
24
ehtRecreational
fo weivrevo fishery:
yrotcafsOnly
itas awith
tegrod
ot and
elbaline.
eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si nClosure
oitamroin
fnBelgium:
i yratnem1eNovember–31
lppus etauqedJanuary.
a fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
senileeel:
diuG
tnerructoehApril,
t redornuextended
deriuqertotomid-May/early
n si siht tuB .June.
dedivorp
Migration period .glass
February
sihtMigration
gnigdelwperiod
onkca silver
sdraweel:
ot September
yaw eht fountil
traDecember/January
p og od senilediu(Yser
G s’in
noFlanders;
issimmoCR
C eTh
:smFebruary
ret gniw(Huisman
ollof ehtetnal.,
i ,m2016).
elborp
2020), with a peak in October; or mid-October until early
n
o snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
The three-month closure from 1 November–31 January is reasonably aligned with the
ysilver
nam eel
ssormigration,
ca sesylanaand
detBelgium
agerggAdoes
.yletanot
raphave
es tneany
mgetargeted
s teefl hccommercial
ae rof ecnalfisheries
abmi for
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
s
fi
t
n
e
r
effilife
d stageel. All fishing for glass eel is banned, as is inland commercial fishing for other
ses.
kcRecreational
ots tnereffid fishing
.e.i( seirisehsubstantial
sfi tnereffiin
d fFlanders
o noitagebut
rggcompletely
a eht sefiitnprohibited
edi ecivdainsiWallonia.
ht elihW
tFrance
nemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
Historically, France had one of the largest eel fisheries in Europe, catching > 1 000
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
tonnes of glass eel and up to 2 000 tonnes of yellow and silver eel. It remains one of the
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
largest producers in the EU and has the biggest catch of glass eels by far. In 2019, 48
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
tonnes were landed, followed by the UK with 6 tonnes and Spain with 4 tonnes. All
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
French glass eel landings come from fisheries on the Atlantic side, as glass eel fishing is
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
prohibited on the Mediterranean side. France also has one of the largest reported landni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
ings of yellow and silver eel at 292 tonnes in 2019. Overall, most of the eels are caught
.woleb 6.2 noitces
in marine and coastal waters, with over 90 % of yellow and silver eel landings and 87 %
of glass eel landings.
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytunits
inutroin
ppFrance.
o gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
Figure 2. The different eel management
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hciArtois–Picardie
hw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lSeine–Normandie
autca eht ssessa ot elbissoRhin–Meuse
pmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Bretagne
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
Loire, côtiers, Vendéens, Sèvre Niortaise
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht niGaronne–Dordogne,
gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semiCharente–Seudre,
temos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
Leyre–Arcachon
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlRhône–Méditerranée
aB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
Adour–cours
-bo na taht ded’eau
veilecôtiers
b ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reveCorse
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
French
eel management
is divided
intobe
9 regional
(EMUs),
all
the
Commission
and others
will not
able to Eel
get Management
a satisfactoryUnits
overview
of the
with theirThis
owncan,
closures
and regulations
Figure 2).supplementary
This enables France
to tailor
situation.
however,
be rectified(see
if adequate
information
is
management
torequired
the different
river
also makes up one of the most
provided.
Butmeasures
this is not
under
thebasins,
currentbut
Guidelines.
complex systems in the EU. It is also the only country with a quota system for glass
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
eel. The quotas are set annually for the coming fishing season, e.g. 2020/2021, and diproblem, in the following terms:
vided into marine waters (23 tonnes for consumption and 34.5 tonnes for restocking in
The indicators
are intended
to beinused
in combination to draw conclusions on
2020/2021)
and freshwater
(7.475 tonnes
2020/2021).
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
Table 1. Commercial fisheries closures in the French Atlantic
regions (marine
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
and freshwater).
22
25
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
Region
Eel life stage Marine/Freshwater
targeted)
as unhelpful,
it implies that ensuring separateClosures
treatment of each segment
Marine
25 May–10
January
(as
defined by+vesselGlass
length
and
main
gear
type)
is
sufficient
to avoid
such aggregaArtois-Picardie
eel
Seine-Normandie
Freshwater
Closed
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
February
currently
defined
target more thanMarine
one fish stock. Thus,1 November–15
while aggregated
analyses
Artois-Picardie
+
Yellow eel
Seine-Normandie
across many different fisheries inFreshwater
one Member State may
not be
useful (although
15 July–15
February
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),
aggregated
analyses
of individual
Bretagne
Glass eel
Both
Closed throughout
fisheries across different segmentsMarine
and Member States
be crucial
15 may
September–1
April to get an
Bretagne picture of the
Yellow
eel
accurate
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail in
Freshwater
1 September–31 March
section
2.6 below.
Loire, côtiers,
vendéens, Sèvre
niortaise
Glass eel
Both
1 June–30 November
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
Loire,
Bretagne
to
1 July–31 August;
and
for
determining
of fishing
Yellow
eel opportunity
Marine
Nantes
1 November–31 March
Ideally,
the management areas for which
fishing opportunities
are determined should
Loire: Other sectors Yellow eel
Marine
1 September–31 March
match
the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical
areas for which
Loire, Bretagne to
1 July–31 August;
Yellow from
eel
Freshwater
stocks
are
assessed
differ
the
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
Nantes
1 December–30 April are determined,
fisheries
management
much more challenging,
leadingMarch
to a greater
Loire: Other
sectors
Yellow eel becomes
Freshwater
1 September–31
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporGaronne, Dordogne,
Charente,
Seudre,
Glassdiffer
eel from
Both
15 April–15balance
November
tunities
are
determined
the areas for which capacity
is assessed,
Leyre, Arcachon
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Garonne, Dordogne,
Marine
1 November–1 April
fishing
opportunities.
Charente,
Seudre,
Yellow eel
Leyre, Arcachon
Freshwater
N/A
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misGaronne, Dordogne,
leading,
the
riskeelthat overcapacity
identifiedApril
or reduced. As
Charente,increasing
Seudre,
Yellow
Freshwater will not be
1 October–30
other
sectors more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
aLeyre,
result,
it becomes
allow
depleted
stocksGlass
to recover.
Adour-cours
d’eau
eel
Both
1 April–30 October
côtiers
Our
review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Adour-cours d’eau
Yellow eel
Both
2côtiers
shows that there are
serious geographical
discrepancies1 September–1
between onApril
the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed Marine
and areas for which fishing
opportunities
are deN/A
Rhine – Meuse
Yellow eel
termined, and on the other hand areas
for which capacity
is assessed. For
Freshwater
15 September–15
Aprilexample,
there is often no distinction madeMarine
between vessels fishing
in
the
eastern
Baltic and
Closed
France all Atlantic
Silver
eel
those
fishing in the western Baltic.Freshwater
Worse, there is sometimes
no distinction made
regions
15 February–30 September
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
26
eGlass
ht foeel
wefishing
ivrevo isyrprohibited
otcafsitas aintBretagne.
eg ot elbaInebthetorest
n lliof
w the
srehregions,
to dna different
noissimmclosures
oC eht
sapply,
i noitabut
mroalways
fni yramore
tnemthan
elpputhree
s etauconsecutive
qeda fi defimonths.
itcer eb ,The
revetiming
woh ,naofc sthe
iThclosures
.noitautin
is
relation to known glass
eel
migration
periods,
is
as
follows:
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
siht •gnigThe
delwEMUs
onkca“Artois-Picardie”
sdrawot yaw ehtand
fo “Seine-Normandie”
trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
mret the
gniw
ollofoccurs.
eht ni ,melborp
close 25 May–10 January next year, opening:swhen
peak
no sn•oisuThe
lcnoEMU
c war“Loire,
d ot nocôtiers,
itanibmvendéens,
oc ni desu Sèvre
eb ot niortaise”
dednetni ecloses
ra srot1aJune–
cidni eTh
ynam sso30
rcaNovember.
sesylana deIntaNovember
gerggA .ylethere
tarapeiss toverlap
nemgeswith
teeflwhen
hcae rthe
of efirst
cnalaglass
bmi eels
75
arrive, but otherwise
.lufesuthe
tonfishery
era etais
tSopen
rebmwhen
eM englass
o ni seel
eirarrival
ehsfi tnpeaks.
ereffid
skco•ts tnThe
ereffEMU
id .e.i“Garonne,
( seirehsfi tDordogne,
nereffid fo Charente,
noitagerggSeudre,
a eht sefiLeyre,
itnediArcachon”
ecivda sihtcloses
elihW
15
April–15
November,
but
remains
open
during
the
months
that
glass
eels
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )dearrive.
tegrat
-ager•gga The
hcuEMU
s diov“Adour-cours
a ot tneicffiud’
s esau
i )ecôtiers”
pyt raecloses
g niam1 April–30
dna htgnOctober.
el lessev There
yb denmay
fiedbesa(
sa stnemsome
ges teoverlap
efl ehtinfoApril,
ynambut
sa for
hcumost
msanofi the
,gnimigration
daelsim siperiod,
siht ,ythe
letafishery
nutrofisnU
.noit
open.
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hFor
guoyellow
htla( lueel
fesfisheries
u eb toninyamarine
m etatSwaters,
rebmethere
M eniso at
nileast
seireahthree-month
sfi tnereffid yseasonal
nam ssoclorca
in adifferent
lsure
audibut
vidnthe
i fotime
sesyperiod
lana dvaries
etagergg
,)2 hparregions
garapbu(Table
s )2(221).eAll
lcitrcommercial
A rednu defishing
riuqer
for
waters
n
a tsilver
eg ot eel
laicin
urcmarine
eb yam
setatSinrthe
ebmFrench
eM dnaAtlantic
stnemgregions
es tnereisffiprohibited,
d ssorca seiwhich
rehsfi
protects
migration
n
i liated the
erom
ni dessuperiod
csid si that
eussoccurs
i siTh .in
ecnSeptember
alab yticapto
acNovember.
eht fo erutRecreational
cip etarucca
fishing for glass eel and silver eel is prohibited, but yellow eel is permitted.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Life,tstages
Allb life
nemsseexploited:
ssa ecnala
yticstages.
apac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinurivers
troppand
o gnlakes.
ihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
Habitat targeted: Coastal waters, estuaries,
dluoCommercial
hs denimretfishery:
ed era seYes,
itinglass
utropeel
poand
gnihyellow
sfi hcieel;
hw silver
rof saeel
era only
tneminegfreshwater.
anam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
Recreational fishery: Yes, only yellow eel.
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaClosure:
erg a ot Set
gniregionally
dael ,gnig(see
nellaTable
hc er1);
omthe
hcsilver
um seeel
mofishery
ceb tneismclosed
eganain
mall
seicoastal
rehsfi ,and
denim
marine
waters.
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,desMigration
sessa si ecnperiod
alab yglass
ticapaeel:
c hcNovember–April,
ihw rof saera ehwith
t moarpeak
f reffin
idNovember
denimretetod era seitinut
dnaJanuary
yticapa–clater
teeflfurther
neewtnorth
eb ecninto
alabthe
lauEnglish
tca ehtChannel.
ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
seiFebruary,
tinutroppo gnihsfi
Migration period silver eel: Starts in October and may extend .to
-simpeak
nevin
e rOctober/November
o sselgninaem sem(in
oceRiver
b tneLoire).
mssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sThe
A .dFrench
ecuderclosures
ro defiiare
tnedini eline
b towith
n lliw
yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
the legal requirements for the three-month ban.
lHowever,
liw taht sthey
noisiare
ced not
ekatalways
ot sregwell
anaaligned
m seirehwith
sfi rothe
f tleel
ucffi
id erom speriods.
emocebThe
ti ,tFrench
luser a
migration
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d
wothe
lla
Atlantic glass eel fisheries closures are not effectively placed to protect the species;
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rexception
etpahC nisi nBretagne,
oiger aeSwhere
citlaBitehistprohibited
ni stroperall
ecyear.
nalabThe
ytictotal
apacban
lanoofitsilver
an fo eel
weifisheries
ver ruO
in Atlantic coastal waters benefits migration, but the timing of the inland closures aldnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
lows fishing during the spawning migration, before they reach the coast.
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,Spain
elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
d
na citlaB nEuropean
retsae ehteel
ni was
gnihwidespread
sfi slessev nthroughout
eewteb edathe
m nIberian
oitcnitPeninsula,
sid on neftwith
o si eartraeht
Historically,
editional
dam nocommercial
itcnitsid onfishery
semitein
moSpain.
s si ereHowever,
ht ,esroWwith
.citlathe
B nconstruction
retsew eht nof
i gdams
nihsfi in
esothe
ht
gregion
nihsfisince
esohtthe
dn1960s,
a aeS hmost
troNofethe
ht ninland
i gnihsriver
fi esobasins
ht ,citare
laBnow
eht ninaccessible
i gnihsfi sleand
ssevEuropean
neewteb
.saes htob ni
eel has lost over 80 % of its original geographic range (Clavero & Hermoso, 2015).
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Spain
has a fairly and
limited
eel fishery
Reported
(ICES,
2020d) are
for
the
Commission
others
will nottoday.
be able
to get landings
a satisfactory
overview
of the
the whole This
country.
commercial
fisheries
for glass supplementary
eel, the total landings
in 2019
situation.
can, For
however,
be rectified
if adequate
information
is
were 4 tonnes,
lessisthan
up to under
11 tonnes
in recent years. For yellow and
provided.
But this
not the
required
the reported
current Guidelines.
silver eel, total landings of 47 tonnes, again less than the 71 tonnes reported in 2018
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
and the preliminary 60 tonnes for 2020. Recreational landings of glass eel were at
problem, in the following terms:
least 865 kg in 2019 (normally around 2 tonnes) and 265 kg of yellow and silver eel.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
Spain’simbalance
eel management
divided
into 12separately.
regional Eel
Management
Unitsacross
(EMUs;
see
for eachis fleet
segment
Aggregated
analyses
many
Figuredifferent
3) and a fisheries
transboundary
management
plan
for
the
Minho
River
agreed
with
57
in one Member State are not useful.
Portugal. The Atlantic coast has four EMUs: Basque Country, Cantabria, Asturias
While
this advice
identifies
the aggregation
of different
fisheries
(i.e. different
stocks
and Galicia.
All have
an extensive
management
framework
for their
eel fisheries.
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
Figure
3. The
eel management
(as
defined
bydifferent
vessel length
and main gearunits
type)inisSpain.
sufficient to avoid such aggregation. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
Asturias
across manyGalicia
different fisheries in Cantabria
one Member State may not be useful (although
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2), aggregated analyses of individual
Basque
Minho
Country
River
fisheries across different segments and MemberNavarra
States may be crucial to get an
(inland)
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue
is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 below.
Inner basins
22
27
Catalonia
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
Portugal
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
La Mancha
stocks are assessed differ from Castille
the areas
for which fishing opportunities are deter(inland)
Valencia
mined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporIslands
tunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balanceBalearic
is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual
balance between fleet capacity and
Murcia
Andalusia
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow
depleted
to recover.
The only
fisherystocks
permitted
in the Basque Country is recreational fishing for glass
eel, which
allowed
from
16 November
31 January.
restSea
of the
year,infrom
1
Our
reviewisof
national
capacity
balance to
reports
in theThe
Baltic
region
Chapter
to 15there
November,
all eel
fisheries arediscrepancies
closed.
2February
shows that
are serious
geographical
between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are deIn Cantabria,
glassareas
eel fishing
is allowed
and itisisassessed.
open forFor
fourexample,
months;
termined,
andonly
on commercial
the other hand
for which
capacity
from
1
November
to
28
February.
Recreational
fishing
for
glass
eel
was
prohibited
in 2014.
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic
and
those
fishing
in the
western Baltic.
Worse,
is sometimes
no fishing.
distinction
made
Asturias
has also
prohibited
everything
butthere
commercial
glass eel
There
are
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
specific management plans for Nalón and Tinamayor estuaries, and a set of measures
in
seas.of the coast (9 river basins). In both estuaries, glass eel fishing on foot is
forboth
the rest
allowed
to February,
andininthe
thereform
Nalón process
Estuary believed
a limitedthat
fishery
by
After
thefrom
2013November
reform, some
participants
an obboat is allowed
fromcapacity
1 November
to 3 segment
December.
The official
closure
is
ligation
to present
by fleet
would
result inthree-month
“a more precise
and
58
1detailed
Augustpicture
to 31 October.
of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”. However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
28
is sallowed.
three
eInhtGalicia,
fo weivonly
revo commercial
yrotcafsitas afishing
teg otfor
elbeel
a eb> 20
toncm
lliw
rehto dnThere
a noisare
simm
oC eexht
sploitation
i noitamroplans
fni yrfor
atnemarine
melppuand
s etatransitional
uqeda fi defiwaters
itcer eb(Ferrol
,revewoEstuary,
h ,nac siArousa
Th .noitEstuautis
ary and Vigo Estuary)
.senand
iledtwo
iuG exploitation
tnerruc eht rplans
ednu dfor
eriinland
uqer towaters
n si siht(Tambre
tuB .dedRiver
ivorp
mouth and Ulla River mouth), which include fishing closure periods (see Table 2).
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smreint gOctober
niwollof2010
eht nestablished
i ,melborp
In Andalusia, the adoption of the Eel Management Plan
a o10-year
recovery
n
snoisulban
cnocofwall
ardeel
otfisheries
noitanib(Decree
moc ni d396/2010,
esu eb ot of
de2dnNovember,
etni era sroadopting
tacidni eTh
ymeasures
nam ssorfor
ca sEuropean
esylana deeel),
tagerwhich
ggA .yisletbeing
arapeextended
s tnemgesfor
teeanother
fl hcae ro10f eyears.
cnalabAndalusia
mi
straddles the Atlantic 7and
Mediterranean
seas,
but
the
ban
applies
throughout.
5
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
sTable
kcots2.tnFishing
ereffid .closures
e.i( seirehfor
sfi tthe
nerSpanish
effid fo nAutonomous
oitagergga ehtCommunities
sefiitnedi ecivon
da the
sihtcoast.
elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
Autonomous
Fishery
Eel life stage
Closures
-aCommunity
gergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht1 ,February–
yletanutrofnU .noit
Basque Country
Recreational
Glass eel
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom teg14
ratNovember
denfied 2021
yltnerruc
1
March–
hCantabria
guohtla( lufesu eb ton Commercial
yam etatS rebmGlass
eM eeel
no ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
31 October 2021
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
Asturias
Commercial
March–
n(Nalón
a teg &otTinamayor
laicurc eb yam
setatS rebmeM
dneel
a stnemges tner1eff
id ssorca seirehsfi
Glass
(on foot)
31 October 2021
nestuaries)
i liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Asturias
Commercial
4 December–
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Glass eel
(Nalón Estuary)
(by boat)
31 October 2021
1 August 2020–
Asturias
,tnemssessa ecnalCommercial
ab yticapac dnaGlass
kcoeel
ts rof desu sisab 31
lacOctober
ihpargo
eG 5.3.2.1
2020
(the rest of coast)
3-month
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo(official
gninim
reted rban)
of dna
(Ferrol Estuary)
dGalicia
luohs d
enimreted era seCommercial
itinutroppo gnihYellow
sfi hcand
ihwsilver
rof seel
aera tne1mNovember
eganam e2020–
ht ,yllaedI
(marine & transitional
31 March 2021
hwaters)
cihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-rGalicia
eted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffi1dOctober
dessess2020–
a era skcots
(Tambre River mouth)
Commercial
Yellow and silver eel
re(freshwater)
taerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemega30
naApril
m se2021
irehsfi ,denim
-rGalicia
oppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
1 November 2020–
,d(Ulla
esseRiver
ssa smouth)
i ecnalab yticaCommercial
pac hcihw rof saYellow
era ehand
t msilver
orf reel
effid de31
nim
reted2021
era seitinut
January
(freshwater)
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Galicia
.1seNovember
itinutrop2020–
po gnihsfi
(Arousa Estuary) (marine Commercial
Yellow and silver eel
& transitional waters)
2 February 2021
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
Galicia (Vigo Estuary)
sA
.decu&dtransitional
er ro defiitnedCommercial
i eb ton lliw ytYellow
icapacand
revosilver
taheel
t ksir eh1tNovember
gnisaercn2020–
i ,gnidael
(marine
2 February 2021
waters)
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
Minho River
.revocer ot 19
skcFebruary–
ots detelped wolla
Commercial
Glass eel
(Portugal-Spain)
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
7 November 2021
reAndalusia
tpahC ni noiger aeS ciNone
tlaB eht ni stropAllerstages
ecnalab yticapac laClosed
noitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
In the Minho River, the transboundary eel management plan only permits com,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
mercial fishing for glass eel. The fishing season for 2020–2021 is from 8 November
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
2020–18 February 2021, split in four periods of 15 days according to moon phases;
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
the rest of the year the fishery is prohibited, creating a closure from 19 February to 7
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
November 2021. However, the official dates given for the three-month closure are 1
.saes htob ni
August to 31 October 2021.
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
stages exploited: Glass eel in Basque Country, Cantabria, Asturias
the Life
Commission
and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
and Minho River; yellow and silver eels in Galicia; none in Andalusia.
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
HabitatBut
targeted:
Mainly
coastalunder
watersthe
andcurrent
estuaries,
some inland rivers.
provided.
this is not
required
Guidelines.
22
29
fishery:
Yes, in Cantabria,
Asturias,
and Minho
River;
TheCommercial
Commission’s
Guidelines
do go part
of theGalicia
way towards
acknowledging
this
none in Andalusia.
problem, in the following terms:
Recreational fishery: Yes, but only in Basque Country where glass eel fishing is allowed.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
Migration
period
eel: October
April, with aAggregated
peak in November–December
imbalance
for glass
each fleet
segmenttoseparately.
analyses across many
a peak
in
January
in
Galicia;
October–March,
with
a
peak
in December/January
in
57
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.
the Minho River; all year around in Andalusia.
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
Migration period silver eel: October–December, with a peak in October
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
(Ulla river mouth); in Andalusia silver eel migrate December–March.
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregation.
this is misleading,
inasmuch
many
ofwith
the the
fleetEUsegments
as
All of Unfortunately,
the closures for marine
and transitional
watersas
are
in line
regulation.
Many closures
are longer
all than
regions
prohibit
fisheries
forwhile
certain
life stages.analyses
When it
currently
defined
targetand
more
one
fish stock.
Thus,
aggregated
comes to
glassdifferent
eel fisheries,
however,
all the
northern
regions
fishing
peak
across
many
fisheries
in one
Member
State
may allow
not be
usefulduring
(although
arrival,
though
in
the
Basque
Country
this
is
limited
to
recreational
catches.
In
Galicia,
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
there is a greater overlap between silver eel migration and the closures, and glass eel
fisheries
across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
fishing is prohibited.
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section
2.6 below.
Portugal
Portugal has never had a fishery targeting silver eels. If fishers catch silver eels in So
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
André Lagoon (freshwater jurisdiction), they are obliged to return them to the water,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
even outside the national closure period. The Portuguese Eel Management Plan conIdeally,
theentire
management
areasterritory
for which
opportunities
are determined
should
siders the
continental
as fishing
one EMU,
with the exception
of the Minho
match
the areas
coveredby
byastock
assessments.
When the geographical
areasSpain.
for which
River, which
is covered
transboundary
management
plan shared with
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are deterThere is fisheries
a commercial
yellow eelbecomes
fishery limited
11 fishing
areas inleading
coastal waters
(estumined,
management
much to
more
challenging,
to a greater
ariesof
and
coastal lagoons)
and 9when
inlandthe
fishing
areas called
ZPPs
Pesca opporProfisrisk
overfishing.
Similarly,
geographical
areas
for(Zonas
whichde
fishing
sional, orare
Professional
Fishing
In 2019,
2 tonnes
were landed.
tunities
determined
differZones).
from the
areas only
for which
capacity
balanceRecreational
is assessed,
fishing
for eel
is prohibited
throughout
in both between
marine and
freshwater.
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to assess the
thecountry,
actual balance
fleet
capacity and
fishing opportunities.
In Minho River, a licensed glass eel fishery is allowed from 8 November to 18 FebIn
the worst
case, the
balance
becomesasmeaningless
even misruary,
but fishing
forcapacity
yellow and
silverassessment
eel is forbidden,
well as all or
recreational
leading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity
will
not
be
identified
or
reduced.
As
fishing. The reported glass eel landings in 2019 were 587 kg.
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow
depleted
stocks to recover.
Life
stages exploited:
Yellow eel; glass eel in Minho River.
Estuaries,
coastal
lagoons
andin
inland
waters.Sea region in Chapter
OurHabitat
reviewtargeted:
of national
capacity
balance
reports
the Baltic
2 shows
that there
are serious
geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
Commercial
fishery:
Yes
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are deRecreational fishery: No
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Closure:
1 October–31
December
both coastal
and
inlandin
waters,
except for
the and
there
is often
no distinction
made in
between
vessels
fishing
the eastern
Baltic
limited glass eel fishery in Minho River.
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
Migration
period
glass
eel: Baltic,
October
to January,
a peak
around
December.
between
vessels
fishing
in the
those
fishingwith
in the
North
Sea and
those fishing
in both
seas. period silver eel: October to December.
Migration
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obPortugal has a clearly stated policy to protect silver eel during its migration and the naligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
tional closure of marine, coastal and inland waters match the migration period. No
glass
detailed
picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 Howeel fishery is allowed outside the Minho River basin jointly managed with Spain. Recreever,
asfishing
noted is
above,
the European
Commission’s
Guidelines
nottext
require
Member
ational
also prohibited.
Portugal
is aligned with
both thedo
legal
and its
intent.
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
30
Atlantic regional conclusions
eht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.seniletotal
diuGlandings
tnerruc eofhtyellow
rednu and
deriusilver
qer toeel
n sfor
i sihthe
t tuAtlantic
B .dedivorerp
It is difficult to calculate
Country
Reports
do
sgion,
iht gas
niggenerally
delwonkcthe
a sdICES
rawotlandings
yaw ehtdata
fo trand
ap othe
g odunderlying
senilediuG
s’noissim
moC eTh
not divide landings between different coasts and associated
:smret griver
niwobasins.
llof ehtHowever,
ni ,melborinp
2019, the Member States on the west-coast of the EU – the Atlantic, English Channel
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
and North Sea coastline – reported glass eel landings of 54.45 tonnes, of which only
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
1.5 % consisted of recreational
catches (Basque Country, Spain).
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
sIn
kcthis
ots tregion,
nereffidthe
.e.iNetherlands,
( seirehsfi tneFrance,
reffid foGermany,
noitagerggDenmark
a eht sefiand
itnedSpain
i ecivdtake
a sihthe
t ellargihW
est
catches
of
European
eel,
while
landings
in
Portugal
and
Belgium
are
more
martnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
eel,ustotal
tonnes.
-ginal.
agerggFor
a hcyellow
us diovand
a otsilver
tneicffi
si )epreported
yt raeg nlandings
iam dna in
htg2019
nel lwere
essev 856.26
yb denfi
ed sa(
Whereas
Baltic
catches
are
dominated
by
silver
eel,
in
the
Atlantic
region
yellow
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
seel
esyfisheries
lana detaare
gerbigger
gga elihinwFrance,
,suTh .kthe
cotNetherlands
s hsfi eno naand
ht erPortugal,
om tegratand
denwill
fiednot
yltnhave
erruac
hdirect
guohteffect
la( lufon
esusilver
eb toeel
n ymigration.
am etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
lThe
audapproach
ividni fo to
sesthe
ylanthree-month
a detagerggaclosures
,)2 hpaisrgalso
arapmore
bus )variable
2(22 elcithan
trA rinedthe
nu Baltic
deriuqreer
n
a te(see
g otFigure
laicurc4).ebTwo
yam
setatS r–ebFrance
meM and
dna Spain
stnem–gehave
s tnearcomplex
effid ssocombination
rca seirehsfi
gion
countries
n
i
l
i
a
t
e
d
e
r
o
m
n
i
d
e
s
s
u
c
s
i
d
s
i
e
u
s
s
i
s
i
Th
.
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
t
cip eof
tartheir
ucca
of closures/fishing periods managed on a regional basis, making the analysis
.woleball6.their
2 noimatces
effectiveness more difficult. However, all the Member States have closed
rine and coastal eel fisheries for at least three consecutive months within the set time
mssessatoe28
cnaFebruary
lab ytica–pthough
ac dna they
kcotsmay
rof not
desu
sab
lacihat
pathe
rgosame
eG 5.time.
3.2.1
period,t–n1eAugust
allsibe
closed
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dSome
luohsclosures
denimreintethis
d eraregion
seitinumatch
troppothe
gneel
ihsfimigration
hcihw rofpattern.
saera tneInmIreland,
eganam eall
hteel
,yllfishaedI
ing
has
been
prohibited
since
2009,
which
clearly
protects
the
spawning
migration.
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
prohibited
-Andalusia
reted era sin
eitsouthern
inutroppSpain
o gnihhas
sfi also
hcihw
rof saeraall
eheel
t mfishing.
orf reffThe
id dclosures
essessa ein
ra Portuskcots
gal
and
the
Netherlands
closely
match
the
silver
eel
migration
and
cover
all
fisheries
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-in
ropallpowaters,
gnihsfigoing
hcihwbeyond
rof saerthe
a lacEU
ihplegislation.
argoeg eht nFrance
ehw ,yland
ralimnorthern
iS .gnihsfiSpain
revo f(aside
o ksir
from
Galicia)
effectively
protect
the
coastal
migration
of
silver
eel
as
well,
as
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seisilver
tinut
deel
nafishing
yticapaisc prohibited.
teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitthe
inuteffects
roppo gof
nihthe
sfi
As Belgium doesn’t have a targeted commercial fishery for eel,
-less
simthan
neveoptimally
ro sselgnintimed
aem seclosure
moceb may
tnembe
sselimited,
ssa ecnalbut
ab ysome
ticapasilver
c eht eels
,esacare
tsrocaught
w eht ninI
Denmark
sthe
A .substantial
decuder ro recreational
defiitnedi ebfishery.
ton lliw
yticapacand
revoGermany
taht ksir have
eht gless
nisaewell-matched
rcni ,gnidael
lclosures,
liw taht and
snoisin
iceFrench
d ekat oinland
t sregawaters
nam se(not
irehscovered
fi rof tluby
cffithe
id eEU
romlegislation)
semoceb tisilver
,tluseeel
ra
fishing in rivers is allowed during the downwards spawning
.revocer omigration.
t skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rRecreational
etpahC ni nofisheries
iger aeS are
citlaalso
B ehmore
t ni slimited
troper ein
cnthe
alabAtlantic
yticapacregion.
lanoitaIreland
n fo weiand
ver Porru O
dtugal
nah ehave
no eprohibited
ht no neewthem
teb seialtogether,
cnapercsidand
lacihSpain
pargoonly
eg suallows
oires eraa limited
ereht tarecreationht swohs 2
-aledfishery
era seitfor
inuglass
troppeel
o gin
nihthe
sfi hBasque
cihw roCountry.
f saera dnIn
a dthe
esseNetherlands,
ssa era skcotsanglers
hcihw rpractice
of saera
,catch-and-release,
elpmaxe roF .desseand
ssa sFrance
i yticaponly
ac hcallows
ihw rorecreational
f saera dnahfishing
rehto efor
ht nyellow
o dna eel,
,denwhich
imret
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o
s
i
ereht
limits the direct effects on silver eel migration.
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
theehglass
gThe
nihspicture
fi esohtchanges
dna aeSwith
htroN
t ni geel
nihfisheries,
sfi esoht ,with
citlaBthe
ehtexception
ni gnihsfi of
slethe
ssevtotal
neewban
teb
in Ireland. The glass eel closure in the Minho River doesn’t start until February,
en.saes htob ni
abling Portugal and Spain to fish during peak arrival in December and January. In
-France,
bo na tamost
ht deregions
veileb ssallow
ecorpglass
mrofeel
er efishing
ht ni stduring
napicitrthe
ap epeak
mos arrival
,mroferin31January.
02 eht reThe
ft A
dexception
na esicerpis eBretagne,
rom a“ niwhere
tluseritdis
luoprohibited.
w tnemgesIn
teeSpain,
fl yb yitticisapthe
ac same:
tneserthe
p otnorthern
noitagil
” kcottheir
s hsfi fisheries
nevig a gclosed
nitceffauntil
noitglass
autis eel
yticarrival
apac gnpeaks
ihsfi einhtDecember
fo erutcip and
deliaJanted
-regions
woH 85.keep
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
uary.Commission
They open their
in November
the first glass
eels arriving.
the
and fisheries
others will
not be ableintotime
get for
a satisfactory
overview
of the
In the northern
countries,
there
no glass
eel fisheries,
but they alsoinformation
receive much
situation.
This can,
however,
be are
rectified
if adequate
supplementary
is
lower densities
of glass
provided.
But this
is noteels.
required under the current Guidelines.
22
31
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
part ofinthe
towards
acknowledging
this
Overall,
the measures
taken by do
the go
countries
thisway
region
provide
better protection
problem,
in
the
following
terms:
for migrating silver eels than in the Baltic region. The coastal waters of Ireland, the
Netherlands,
Portugal,areBelgium,
France
of Spain aretoalldraw
closed
during peak
The indicators
intended
to be and
usedmost
in combination
conclusions
on
migration.
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
different
fisheries
in onegeographically
Member Statethan
are in
notthe
useful.
There is
also a greater
overlap
Baltic Sea region, as many of
the closures
applyidentifies
to both marine/coastal
inland waters.
Without
regionalstocks
data
While
this advice
the aggregationand
of different
fisheries
(i.e. different
on
German
catches
since
2016,
it
is
difficult
to
judge
the
effect
of
the
coastal
closures
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
there.
In Denmark,
of and
the eel
is caught
in coastal
waterstobut
commercial
fish(as
defined
by vesselmost
length
main
gear type)
is sufficient
avoid
such aggregaeries
on
the
North
Sea
side
of
Denmark,
including
Skagerrak
and
the
Kattegat,
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segmentsare
as
more limited
– lesstarget
than 20
% ofthan
totalone
Danish
catches.
currently
defined
more
fish stock.
Thus, while aggregated analyses
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
We conclude
thatArticle
the Atlantic
protects silver
eel migration
fairly well,
but some
required
under
22(2)region
subparagraph
2), aggregated
analyses
of individual
countries
could
do
better.
A
better
timed
closure
in
Danish
coastal
waters
could
have
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get
an
further positive effects. Rather surprisingly, the Netherland’s well-timed closure for
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
all waters and all fisheries has not lead to a decrease in catches. It is one of a few
section 2.6 below.
57
countries where eel landings are increasing. So one has to wonder if it is a case of displacement of effort – have the fisheries shifted to target yellow eel instead? Finally,
1.2.3.5
Geographical
used for stock
and capacity
balance
assessment,
a complete
closure of basis
all recreational
fisheries
would make
a real
difference in this
and
foras
determining
of catches
fishing opportunity
region,
recreational
are substantial in Germany, Denmark and Belgium,
but is not
the scope
of these
provisions.
Ideally,
thewithin
management
areas
for which
fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
PEAK
All Atlantic regions
Adour-cours d’eau côtiers
(marine & freshwater)
Garonne, Dordogne,
Charente, Seudre, Leyre,
Arcachon
(marine waters)
Garonne, Dordogne,
Charente, Seudre, Leyre,
Arcachon
(marine & freshwater)
Loire, côtiers, vendéens,
Sèvre niortaise
(marine & freshwater)
Loire, Bretagne to Nantes
(marine waters)
Other sectors
PEAK
Closure yellow eel fishery
Closure yellow eel fishery
MAR
Closure periods
FEB
Closure yellow eel fishery
JAN
Silver eel
Bretagne (marine waters)
Bretagne
(marine & freshwater)
Artois-Picardie
+ Seine-Normandie
(marine waters)
BELGIUM
THE
NETHERLANDS
GERMANY
DENMARK
IRELAND
Glass eel
Skagerrak
APR
MAY
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
Closure glass eel fishery 15 April–15 November
Closed throughout – no silver eel fishery
Closure glass eel fishery 1 April–30 October
1 November–31 March
Closure yellow eel fishery 1 September–1 April
1 November–1 April
Closure yellow eel fishery 1 September–31 March
Closure glass eel fishery 1 June–30 November
1 July–31 Augusti
DEC
1 November–15 February
NOV
Closure yellow eel fishery 15 September–1 April
Closure glass eel fishery 25 May–10 January
Closed throughout – no glass eel fishery
JUN
Figure 4. This schematic compares the main migration periods and the national three-month closures in the western EU Member States along the Atlantic, English
Channel and North Sea coasts.
FRANCE
PEAK
PORTUGAL
(Transboundary plan)
Spain/Portugal
Minho River
Andalusia
Galicia
Arousa Estuary
+ Vigo Estuary
Galicia
Tambre River mouth
Galicia
Ulla River mouth
Galicia
Ferrol Estuary
All of Galicia
Asturias
Nalón & Tinamayor
Cantabria
Basque Country
Glass eel
Figure 4. (continued)
SPAIN
PEAK
FEB
MAR
Closure periods
Closure
JUN
JUL
AUG
Closure glass eel fishery 1 February–15 November
MAY
SEP
OCT
Closed throughout – no glass eel fishery
Closed throughout – no yellow & silver eel fisheries
Closure glass eel fishery 19 February–7 November
Closed
1 February–15
throughout
November
– no fishing
(glass
for any
eel) life stages
Closed throughout – no glass eel fishery
Closed throughout – no yellow & silver eel fisheries
Closure glass eel fishery (by boat) 31 March–2 December
Closure glass eel fishery (on foot) 1 March–31 October
Closed throughout – no yellow & silver eel fisheries
DEC
yellow & silver eel fisheries 1 Nov–2 Feb
yellow & silver eel fisheries 1 Nov–31 Jan
1 November–31 March
NOV
Closure yellow & silver eel fisheries
Closure glass eel fishery 1 August-31 October
Closed throughout – no yellow & silver eel fisheries but recreational fishing allowed
APR
Closure yellow & silver eel fisheries 1 October–30 April
Closure
Closure yellow & silver eel fisheries
JAN
Silver eel
22
34
eht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa eramsstimkecots hcihw rof saera
rea
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah r©eDhto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Mediterranean eel migration
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided.
Butand
thissilver
is noteelrequired
under
the current
Guidelines.
The glass eel
migration
patterns
are more
complex in the Mediterrane-
22
35
an than
in the Atlantic
region.do
Overall,
theofseasonal
of acknowledging
glass and silver this
eels
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
go part
the waypassage
towards
through the
narrow
straitterms:
of the Mediterranean Sea – the Straits of Gibraltar – is
problem,
in the
following
consistent with migration patterns of nearby areas. However, the migration patterns
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
in the Mediterranean Sea itself are less clear.
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
different fisheries
in one Member
are not
useful.57 eel (WKEELMIGRAICES Workshop
on the temporal
migrationState
patterns
of European
TION)this
found
thatidentifies
recruitment
the westernofand
centralfisheries
Mediterranean
Sea starts
in
While
advice
thein
aggregation
different
(i.e. different
stocks
November–December,
in January,
lasts until
January–March.
There
a lack of
targeted)
as unhelpful,peaks
it implies
that and
ensuring
separate
treatment of
eachis segment
information
on
when
glass
eels
enter
the
Mediterranean,
but
the
first
landings
in
Mediter(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaraneanUnfortunately,
river basins occur
(River
Tiber and
Fogliano
Lagoon, Itation.
thisinisNovember/December
misleading, inasmuch
as many
of the
fleet segments
as
ly),
October
to
December
(Salgiada
Lagoon
and
River
Alfios,
Greece)
and
January
(Vaccacurrently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
rès Lagoon,
Glass
eels arrive
in the river
This great
across
manyFrance).
different
fisheries
in all
oneyear
Member
StateGuadalquivir
may not be(Spain).
useful (although
range
for
glass
eel
arrival
could
be
due
to
local
environmental,
climatic
and
hydromorrequired under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
phologicalacross
factorsdifferent
(Elie and segments
Rochard, 1994;
and Quignard,
2019).
In coastal
fisheries
and Kara
Member
States may
be crucial
to lagoons
get an
recruitment
might
occur
all
year
round,
with
seasonal
peaks
dependent
on
local
factors.in
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail
section
2.6 below.and east Mediterranean, the silver eel migration begins in October
In the southern
and continues until early March, with peaks mainly in November–December (Amil1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis used
stock
and capacity
balance
assessment,waters,
hat et al.,
2009; Aschonitis
et al.,for
2017;
Correia
et al., 2019).
In transitional
and
for
determining
of
fishing
opportunity
especially coastal lagoons, silver eels generally start migrating in the autumn with
Ideally,
theNovember–December.
management areas for which
opportunities
determined
should
a peak in
It has fishing
been documented
inare
November
in France
match
the areasLagoon)
covered(Amilhat
by stock assessments.
When
the geographical
areas
for which
(Bages-Sigean
et al., 2009), in
December
and January
in Italy
(Costocks
are
assessed
differ
from
the
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
are
determacchio and Porto Pino Lagoons), and from September to March, with a peak in
mined,
fisheries management
becomesThe
much
more challenging,
greater
December–January
in Greek lagoons.
escapement
season forleading
silver to
eelahas
also
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporbeen recorded in Vistonis Lake in Greece, occuring from October to early March,
tunities
are in
determined
from the
areas for which
with peaks
Decemberdiffer
and January
(MacNamara
et al.,capacity
2014). balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
There isopportunities.
limited information on eels leaving the Mediterranean Sea, to the point that
fishing
it has been suggested that the Mediterranean eels do not contribute to spawning
In
the worst
capacity
assessment
even
mis(Kettle
et al.,case,
2011).the
They
need balance
to pass through
thebecomes
Strait ofmeaningless
Gibraltar toorthe
Atlanleading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity
will
not
be
identified
or
reduced.
As
tic Ocean, where strong currents might be challenging. However, tagged silver eels
afrom
result,
becomes morehave
difficult
for fisheries
to take
will
theitMediterranean
now been
reportedmanagers
to cross the
straitdecisions
into the that
Atlantic
allow
depleted
stocks
to
recover.
(Amilhat et al., 2016), which confirms that Mediterranean countries have an important role
to play
in the efforts
to balance
aid the recovery
European
eel. region in Chapter
Our
review
of national
capacity
reports inofthe
Baltic Sea
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
In 2018, the
General
Fisheries
Commission
for the in
Mediterranean
(GFCM)
adopted
between
vessels
fishing
in the Baltic,
those fishing
the North Sea
and those
fishinga
Recommendation
on a multiannual management plan for European eel in the Mediterrain
both seas.
nean Sea (GFCM 42/2018/1). This recommendation includes the provision for an annual
After
2013 of
reform,
some participants
the reform process
believed that
an obclosurethe
period
three consecutive
months.inImportantly,
the Mediterranean
provision
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
goes beyond the rest of the EU by including inland waters in the closures, as well asand
all
58
detailed
picture
of
the
fishing
capacity
situation
affecting
a
given
fish
stock”.
Howlife stages and all fisheries. It also does not stipulate a particular time period for the threeever,
asclosures;
noted above,
theany
European
Commission’s
Guidelines
domay
notbe
require
Member
month
instead
three consecutive
months
of the year
chosen.
Mediterranean region closures
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
36
eThe
ht fprovision
o weivrevin
o ythe
rotcGFCM
afsitas recommendation
a teg ot elba eb twas
on llinitially
iw srehttransposed
o dna noissinto
immEU
oC law
eht
Regulation
sthrough
i noitamthe
rofnCouncil
i yratnem
elppus eta(EU)
uqeda2019/124
fi defiitcofer 30
eb January
,revewoh2019,
,nac Article
siTh .no42.
itauFor
tis
2020, it was included.seinnithe
lediuCouncil
G tnerrRegulation
uc eht rednu(EU)
deri2019/2236
uqer ton sifixing
siht tufor
B .d2020
edivothe
rp
fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and for 2021 in the Council Regulation (EU)
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
2021/90, Articles 2.1 a) and 5.
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
of
yItnis
amworth
ssorcanoting
sesylanthat
a dethe
tageGFCM
rggA .yprovision
letarapes tfor
nemthe
gesthree-month
teefl hcae rofclosures
ecnalabismpart
i
the Transitional management
measures
(Part
III
in
the
Recommendation).
In
2023,
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
the GFCM plans to adopt long-term management measures for European eel, and
sthe
kcoclosures
ts tnereffwill
id .enot
.i( snecessarily
eirehsfi tnerbe
effincluded
id fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-Spain
agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sThe
a stSpanish
nemges Mediterranean
teefl eht fo ynacoast
m sa ishcdivided
umsaniinto
,gnifour
daelsregional
im si sihEel
t ,yManagement
letanutrofnUUnits
.noit
s(EMUs):
esylana dCatalonia,
etagergga the
elihw
,
s
u
Th
.
k
c
o
t
s
h
s
fi
e
n
o
n
a
h
t
e
r
o
m
t
e
g
r
a
t
d
e
n
fi
e
d
y
l
t
n
e
r ru c
Valencian Community, the Region of Murcia and Andaluhsia
gu(see
ohtlaFigure
( lufes3).
u eOutside
b ton yam
tatSmanagement
rebmeM enunits
o ni sand
eireh
sfi sites
tneredesignated
ffid ynam for
ssoreel
ca
of ethe
the
lfisheries,
audividnall
i foeelsefishing
sylana isdeprohibited.
tagergga ,)2Also,
hparAndalusia
garapbus has
)2(2prohibited
2 elcitrA rall
edneel
u fishing.
deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
Table 3. Closures in Spanish Autonomous Communities on the Mediterranean
n
i liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
coast in 2020/2021.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Region
Fishery
Eel life stage
Closures
,tnemssessa Commercial
ecnalab yticapAllaclifedn
a kcots rof desu s21
isaMarch–20
b lacihpJune
argoeG 5.3.2.1
Catalonia
stages
ytinutroppo gnihClosed
sfi fo gthroughout
ninimreted rof dna
dCatalonia
luohs denimreted Recreational
era seitinutropAll
polife
gnstages
ihsfi hcihw rof saer(catch-and-release
a tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
on eels > 35 cm)
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
The Valencian
-rCommunity
eted era seitinutrCommercial
oppo gnihsfi hGlass
cihweel
rof saera eht morf1 rApril–31
effid dOctober
essessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
Commercial
Yellow and silver eel
The Valencian
-rCommunity
oppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylr1aMay–30
limiS .gSeptember
nihsfirevo fo ksir
(Valencia)
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dThe
na yValencian
ticapac teefl nCommercial
eewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Yellow and silver eel
1 May–30
Community
.seitOctober
inutroppo gnihsfi
(Alicante)
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
The Valencian
sA
.decuder ro defiRecreational
itnedi eb ton Eels
lliw>y25
ticcm
apacrevo taht kNot
sir clear
eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
Community
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid16erJanuary–28
om semocFebruary
eb ti ,tluser a
Region of Murcia
Commercial
Yellow and silver eel .revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
1 April–30 November
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
reRegion
tpahCofnMurcia
i noiger aCommercial
eS citlaB eht nGlass
i stroeelpeand
r eceel
na<la38
b ycm
ticapClosed
ac lanthroughout
oitan fo weiver ruO
dRegion
nah enofo Murcia
eht no neRecreational
ewteb seicnapAll
erlife
csidstages
lacihpargoeg suoiClosed
res erthroughout
a ereht taht swohs 2
-eAndalusia
d era seitinutroppN/A
o gnihsfi hcihNone
w rof saera dna dessessaClosed
era skthroughout
cots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
d
na citlto
aBlandings
nretsae data
eht nspecific
i gnihsfifor
slethe
ssevMediterranean
neewteb edampart
noitof
cnSpain
itsid oisn limited,
nefto si but
erehitt
Access
eisdcollected
am noitcninitthe
sid regions.
on semitThe
emoCountry
s si erehtReport
,esroW(ICES,
.citlaB2020)
nretsshows
ew ehtthat
ni gthe
nihMeditersfi esoht
granean
nihsfi eregion
soht dtakes
na aeS> h80
tro%Nofehthe
t ncatches
i gnihsfiofesyellow
oht ,citand
laB esilver
ht ni eel,
gnihwhich
sfi sleswould
sev neeequal
wteb
saelandings.
s htob ni
roughly 50 tonnes, while the north Atlantic coast dominates in the glass .eel
more
Spain,
-For
bo n
a tahinformation
t deveileb sseabout
corp m
rofer see
ehtthe
ni ssection
tnapicitunder
rap emAtlantic
os ,mrofregional
er 3102 eclosures.
ht reft A
dCatalonia
na esicerphas
eroammanagement
a“ ni tluser plan
dluow
emginland
es teeflbasins,
yb ytiwhich
capac tallows
neserpcommercial
ot noitagil
fortnthe
85
” kcoglass
ts hseel,
fi nebut
vig anot
gnifor
tceffyellow
a noitaand
utis silver
yticapeel.
ac gn
ihsfiofehthe
t foEbro
erutcriver
ip delbasin
iated
-fishing
woH .for
Part
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
runsCommission
through Catalonia,
including
freshwater
andgetfour
lagoons in overview
the Ebro of
Delta,
the
and others
will not
be able to
a satisfactory
the
where the This
eel population
is concentrated.
glass eel fishinginformation
is allowed in
situation.
can, however,
be rectified ifCommercial
adequate supplementary
is
the Catalan
butunder
there the
is acurrent
ban on Guidelines.
yellow and silver eel fishing in
provided.
Butpart
thisofis the
not Ebro,
required
the bays. In the four lagoons, adult eel can be fished with specific gear. Recreational
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
fishing is prohibited, aside from catch-and-release of eels > 35 cm.
problem, in the following terms:
The three-month
closure,
which applies
both
inland watersto
and
the conclusions
Ebro basins,on
is
The indicators
are intended
to be to
used
in combination
draw
set from
21 Marchfor
to each
20 June.
the separately.
water temperature
increases,
glass
eels many
move
imbalance
fleetWhen
segment
Aggregated
analyses
across
up thedifferent
rivers and
the
activity
of
adult
eels
increases.
57
fisheries in one Member State are not useful.
22
37
There isthis
a tradition
of eel fishing
in the Valencian
Community,
which
a commercial
While
advice identifies
the aggregation
of different
fisheries
(i.e.has
different
stocks
fishery
for
both
glass
eel
and
adult
eel,
as
well
as
a
recreational
fishery
for
adult
eel.
The
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
commercial
takes
placeand
in four
wetlands,
one is
of sufficient
which is the
Lagoon.
The
(as
defined fishery
by vessel
length
main
gear type)
toAlbufera
avoid such
aggregaglass
eel
fishery
is
open
from
1
September
to
31
March.
For
adult
eel,
measures
are
divided
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
into two provinces:
Valencia
andthan
Alicante.
Thestock.
fishingThus,
season
in Valencia
is between
currently
defined target
more
one fish
while
aggregated
analyses1
October
and
30
April,
and
in
Alicante
it
is
between
1
November
and
30
April.
Recreaacross many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
tional fishing
is practised
the region,2),including
the Júcar
riverofbasin,
with a
required
under
Article throughout
22(2) subparagraph
aggregated
analyses
individual
minimum
size
of
25
cm.
It
is
not
clear
whether
the
closures
apply
to
recreational
fishing.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
The fishery is more limited in the Region of Murcia, where eels are rare in inland
section 2.6 below.
waters. There is a licensed commercial fishery for eel over 38 cm in the Mar Menor
Lagoon. This large, permanent hypersaline lagoon is home to a coastal stock of Euro1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
pean eel, and the site of a small-scale fishery with long traditions. The closure periods
and for determining of fishing opportunity
for 2021 are 16 January to 28 February and 1 April to 30 November. The winter closure
Ideally,
managementinareas
for whichsteps,
fishing
opportunities
are determined
should
has beenthe
implemented
incremental
beginning
with 16–28
February in
2019
match
the1–28
areasFebruary
covered by
stock Recreational
assessments. When
geographical
for which
and then
in 2020.
fishingthe
is prohibited
in areas
Murcia.
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
fisheries
management
moreeelchallenging,
leading
to aforgreater
Life stages
exploited:
Glass becomes
eel; yellowmuch
and silver
(about 50/50);
different
riskdifferent
of overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporregions.
tunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
Habitat targeted: Mainly coastal lagoons, but also wetlands and river basins.
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Commercial
fishery: Yes
fishing
opportunities.
Recreational fishery: Yes, in Catalonia and the Valencian Community.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misGlassincreasing
eel arrival:the
November
to March,
with a peak
in January;
all year in
leading,
risk that
overcapacity
will not
be identified
orcoastal
reduced. As
lagoons
(Kara
and
Quignard,
2019).
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow
depletedsilver
stocks
toOctober–March,
recover.
Migration
eel:
with peaks in November and December;
in Murcia December to March (Carmen Martinez, pers. comm.)
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
The closures and the migration periods are poorly aligned on the Spanish Mediterranean
areas
for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are decoast. Catalonia and the Valencian Community open the commercial fisheries for silver
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
eel just as the migration starts, going against the GFCM Recommendation and the legal
there
is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
intention of the closures. Murcia has closed the glass eel fishery completely and introthose
in thecatch
western
Baltic.
Worse,
there
is sometimes
noisdistinction
made
duced fishing
a minimum
size of
38 cm,
but the
fishery
for silver eel
open during
the
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
migration period. Andalusia’s decision to prohibit all eel fisheries is particularly positive
in
both seas.its position over the Straits of Gibraltar, which all Mediterranean eels have
considering
to pass on their spawning migration.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
38
eFrance
ht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
sThe
i noFrench
itamrofnEel
i yrManagement
atnemelppus ePlan
tauqecovers
da fi dall
efiitmarine
cer eb ,and
revewfreshwater
oh ,nac siTh
.noiup
tautto
is
areas
.seniincluding
lediuG tneRhone
rruc ehtand
redCorsica
nu deriuqon
er the
ton Mediterranean
si siht tuB .dedivside.
orp
1 000 metres elevation,
eel sin
sIn
ihtRhone,
gnigdethere
lwonkiscaa scommercial
drawot yawfishery
eht fo for
trapyellow
og odand
sensilver
ilediuG
’nomarine
issimmowaters,
C eTh
mostly in coastal lagoons. It is only open to professional
fishers
and
represent
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melabsigorp
nificant domestic economic value that supported around 600 households ten years
n
o sn
oisulcnocetwal.,
ard2009).
ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ago
(Amilhat
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75 yellow eel is allowed, but prohibited for silver eel. Glass eel
Recreational fishing for
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
fishing is prohibited for both commercial and recreational fisheries.
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tIn
nethe
mgeyellow
s hcae and
fo tnsilver
emtaeeel
rt catches,
etarapesmarine
gnirusnand
e tacoastal
ht seilpm
i ti ,lufpaccount
lehnu safor)daround
etegrat
landings
-95
ag%
ergg
hcuslandings,
diova ot and
tneicaround
ffius si 70
)ep%ytofrathe
eg ncatch
iam dconsists
na htgnof
el yellow
lessev yeel
b d–enmore
fied sin
a(
of atotal
sfreshwater
a stnemgeshabitats.
teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hThe
guoclosure
htla( luperiods
fesu eb tfor
on the
yamdifferent
etatS remanagement
bmeM eno niunits
seireare
hsfiset
tneout
reffin
id special
ynam sdocusorca
and
lments,
audividthe
ni Arrêté
fo ses2016
ylanafordeyellow
tagergg
a ,)silver
2 hpaeel
rgaand
rapbthe
us Arrêté
)2(22 e2013
lcitrfor
A glass
redneel,
u deand
riuqwe
er
have
listed
them
in
Table
4.
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
n
i liate4.dEel
erofishing
m ni declosures
ssucsid sin
i ethe
ussiFrench
siTh .eMediterranean
cnalab yticapac region
eht fo erutcip etarucca
Table
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Region
Eel life stage
Fishery
Waters
Closures
Rhone,tnemssessaGlass
ecnaeel
lab yticaAllpac dna kcotBoth
s rof desu siClosed
sab lathroughout
cihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
Rhone
Yellow eel
ytinutBoth
roppo gnihs1fiDecember–28
fo gninimreFebruary
ted rof dna
Commercial
dRhone
luohs denimretedYellow
era seeel
itinutroRecreational
ppo gnihsfi hcBoth
ihw rof saerNot
a tnclear
emeganam eht ,yllaedI
hRhone
cihw rof saera laciSilver
hpareel
goeg eht Commercial
nehW .stnemsMarine
sessa kcots y2bMarch–30
derevoc sSeptember
aera eht hctam
-rRhone
eted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
Silver eel
Commercial
Freshwater 15 October–31 August
re(sector
taerg 13
a oand
t gn30)
idael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-rRhone
oppo gnihsfi hcihSilver
w roeel
f saera laCommercial
cihpargoeg ehFreshwater
t nehw ,ylraClosed
limiSthroughout
.gnihsfirevo fo ksir
(all other sectors)
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
Rhone
Silver eel
Recreational
Both
Closed throughout
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Corsica
Glass eel
All
Both
Closed throughout
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Corsica
Yellow eel
Commercial
Marine
1 July–30 September
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
1 July–31 August;
Corsica
Yellow
sA
.decuder ro defi
itnedeel
i eb tonCommercial
lliw yticapacFreshwater
revo taht ks15
ir October–15
eht gnisaeMarch
rcni ,gnidael
llCorsica
iw taht snoisicedSilver
ekateel
ot sreganCommercial
am seirehsfi rMarine
of tlucffiid15
eroFebruary–15
m semocebSeptember
ti ,tluser a
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
Corsica
Silver eel
Commercial
Freshwater Closed throughout ped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
reCorsica
tpahC ni noiger Yellow
aeS cieel
tlaB ehtRecreational
ni stroper ecnBoth
alab yticapaNot
c laclear
noitan fo weiver ruO
dCorsica
nah eno eht no nSilver
eewteel
eb seicnaRecreational
percsid lacihpBoth
argoeg suoirClosed
es erathroughout
ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpLife
maxstages
e roF .dexploited:
essessa si Yellow
yticapaand
c hsilver
cihw eel.
rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dnaHabitat
citlaB ntargeted:
retsae ehMainly
t ni gncoastal
ihsfi slewaters.
ssev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihCommercial
sfi esoht dnfishery:
a aeS htrYes
oN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
Recreational fishery: Yes, but only yellow eel.
.saes htob ni
-boGlass
na taeel
ht darrival:
eveileb January
ssecorptomApril,
roferwith
eht anipeak
stnain
piFebruary.
citrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dnaMigration
esicerp erperiod
om a“ silver
ni tlueel:
ser October–March,
dluow tnemgeswith
teefla peak
yb ytinicNovember.
apac tneserp ot noitagil
85
-woH .” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
All glass eel fishing, as well as recreational fishing for silver eel is prohibited. Landings
the
Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
are dominated by marine and coastal fisheries for yellow eel, making the timing of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
closure periods in marine waters important. However, there is almost no overlap beprovided.
But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
tween the closures and the silver eel migration . Shifting the closures to match the mi-
22
39
gration
period wouldGuidelines
provide a more
effective
silver eel.
The
Commission’s
do go
part ofprotection
the way of
towards
acknowledging this
problem, in the following terms:
Italy
Theeelindicators
to behave
usedainlong-standing
combination tradition.
to draw conclusions
on
In Italy,
fisheries are
for intended
all life stages
In the 1970s,
imbalance
each
fleeteelsegment
separately.
Aggregated
analyses
across10many
landings
of yellowforand
silver
were over
2 000 tonnes.
They57 are
only about
% of
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
that now, but Italy is still one of the main countries fishing for eel in the EU. The Italian eelthis
fisheries
alwaysthe
focused
on transitional
coastal
waters,
such as lagoons
While
advicehave
identifies
aggregation
of different
fisheries
(i.e. different
stocks
and estuaries;
eel fishingitin
rivers that
and lakes
has never
been
significant.
targeted)
as unhelpful,
implies
ensuring
separate
treatment
of each segment
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaSince the adoption of the EU eel regulation, 9 of Italy’s 20 regions are part of the
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
national Eel Management Plan and manage their eel fisheries under regional EMUs,
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
whereas 11 regions delegated eel management to the central Administration. In the
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
11 regions, all fishing for eel is prohibited. In the 9 regions, sea fisheries are under the
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
responsibility of central Administration, while the regions are responsible for inland
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
waters, including transitional waters such as lagoons and estuaries.
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section
2.6 below.
All sea fishing
for yellow and silver eel is prohibited (Decreto Ministeriale n. 403 del
25 luglio 2019, Art. 4). Sea fishing for glass eel, including estuaries, is managed by the
1.2.3.5
basis
used
for stock
balance assessment,
central Geographical
Administration.
Only
Toscana
and and
Laziocapacity
on the Tyrrhenian
coast allow glass
and
for
determining
of
fishing
opportunity
eel fishing in inland waters. Glass eel landings in recent years have been below 250
kg, and the
zeromanagement
catch was reported
2020.fishing opportunities are determined should
Ideally,
areas forfor
which
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
In the 9 EMUs, there is a seasonal commercial and recreational fishery for yellow and
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are detersilver eel in inland waters, including estuaries and lagoons. Sardinia and Emilia-Romined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
magna catch the largest proportions of yellow and silver eel, followed by Veneto,
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporToscana, Puglia and Lazio, so there are active fisheries on both the east and the west
tunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
coast. In 2018, the commercial landings of 159 tonnes consisted of 75 % silver eel. In
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
addition, there were an estimated 38 tonnes of recreational landings (20 % of the
fishing opportunities.
total), of which 75 % were yellow eels. In 2019, total commercial landings were 210
In
the worst
case, the capacity
balance assessment becomes meaningless or even mistonnes
and recreational
30 tonnes.
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
three-month
closure
first implemented
2020, withtoone
fishing
closure
from
aThe
result,
it becomes
morewas
difficult
for fisheriesinmanagers
take
decisions
that
will1
January
to 31 March
covering
all eel fisheries in all waters (Decreto Ministeriale n. 403 del
allow
depleted
stocks
to recover.
25 luglio 2019). However, glass eel fishing intended for restocking is allowed to continue
Our
review
of national
capacity
the Baltic
Sea region
(Article
3) during
the closure.
Also,balance
the sale reports
of eels isin
allowed
to continue
untilin
20Chapter
January.
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas
forstages
whichexploited:
stocks areGlass,
assessed
and
areas
foreel.
which fishing opportunities are deLife
yellow
and
silver
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Habitat targeted: Mainly coastal transitional waters in the 9 EMUs.
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
Commercial
Yes, all
life stages;
silver
eel 75
% of adult landings.
those
fishing in fishery:
the western
Baltic.
Worse,
there
is sometimes
no distinction made
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and those fishing
Recreational fishery: Yes, yellow and silver eel (75/25 % split).
in both seas.
Closure: 1 January–31 March for all waters; All year for yellow and silver eel in
marine
waters;
all completely
prohibited in
After
the 2013
reform,
some participants
in11
theregions.
reform process believed that an
obligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
Glass eel arrival: December to March, with a peak in January.
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 HowMigration period silver eel: October to March, with a peak in December/January.
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
40
eThe
ht Italian
fo weiclosure
vrevo ycovers
rotcafsthe
itaslatter
a teghalf
ot of
elbthe
a emigration
b ton lliwperiod
srehtofordsilver
na noeel
issiand
mmmost
oC ehoft
the glass eel arrival. The closure is not fully enforced, as glass eel fishing for restocking is
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
allowed to continue. In addition, with 75 % of landings consisting of silver eel, an earlier
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
closure would be more effective for protecting the spawning migration. In recent years,
going
scommercial
iht gnigdellandings
wonkca have
sdrabeen
wot yincreasing,
aw eht fowhereas
trap ogrecreational
od seniledilandings
uG s’noare
issim
moCdown.
eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Malta
n
o snoireports
sulcnocno
walandings
rd ot noitof
anEuropean
ibmoc ni deel.
esu Under
eb ot dCommission
ednetni era srDecision
otacidni e2009/310/
Th
Malta
yEC,
namMalta
ssorcwas
a sesgranted
ylana deexemption
tagerggA .yfrom
letarthe
apesobligation
tnemges tto
eefl
hcae roanf eeel
cnamanagement
labmi
prepare
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
s
fi
t
n
e
ffidfishing
plan in accordance with Council Regulation 1100/2007. No three-monthreeel
sclosure
kcots tnhas
erebeen
ffid .eapplied.
.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-Slovenia
agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
In
sa sSlovenia,
tnemges tEuropean
eefl eht foeelynwas
am sdeclared
a hcumsaanprotected
i ,gnidaelsspecies
im si sihint 2004
,yletanand
utrosince
fnU .then
noit
no
fishing
has
been
allowed
–
commercial
or
recreational.
In
the
years
before,
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnervery
ru c
limited
commercial
landings,
between
4–19
kg,
were
reported
to
ICES;
as
well
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorcasa
lrecreational
audividni focatches
sesylanbetween
a detage4–33
rggakg.
,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni lLife
iatedstages
eromexploited:
ni dessucNone
sid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Habitat targeted: None
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Commercial fishery: No
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
Recreational fishery: No
all year, for all fisheries and in all waters.
dluoClosure:
hs denim
reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihMigration
w rof saerperiod
a lacihpglass
argoeeel:
g ehDecember–March,
t nehW .stnemssewith
ssa kacpeak
ots ybindJanuary
erevoc 6saera eht hctam
-retMigration
ed era seitperiod
inutropsilver
po gneel:
ihsfiOctober–March,
hcihw rof saewith
ra ehatpeak
morfinrNovember
effid desse7 ssa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-InroSlovenia,
ppo gnihEuropean
sfi hcihw eel
rof was
saerprotected
a lacihparin
go2004
eg ehand
t neall
hweel
,ylrfishing
alimiS has
.gnibeen
hsfireprohibited
vo fo ksir
since
then.
This
clearly
goes
beyond
the
legal
requirements
for
the
three-month
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era sclosure,
eitinut
life
dand
na protects
yticapaceels
teeflofnall
eew
testages
b ecnaincluding
lab lautcathe
ehspawning
t ssessa otmigration.
elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
Croatia
-In
sim
ve rothere
sselgnwas
inaeamsignificant
semoceb tcommercial
nemssessa eceel
nalfishery
ab yticainpaCroatia
c eht ,es(Basioli,
ac tsrow1957a).
eht nI
thenepast,
sInA the
.decNeretva
uder ro River,
defiitnthe
edi annual
eb ton catch
lliw yranged
ticapacrfrom
evo t68
ahttoks70
ir tonnes
eht gnis(Morović,
aercni ,gn1948;
idael
lBasioli,
liw taht1957b).
snoisicCommercial
ed ekat ot sreel
egafishing
nam seistill
rehstakes
fi rof place
tlucffiinidthe
eroNeretva
m semocRiver,
eb ti ,tbut
lusethe
ra
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d
w
o
lla
area in which it is fished is unknown and there are no catch quotas. In other Croatian
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
only
rrivers,
etpahC
ni nrecreational
oiger aeS cifishing
tlaB ehtisnallowed.
i stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
Croatia is one of only three countries in the EU that have not yet submitted a nation-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
al Eel Management Plan, and is therefore required to implement a 50 % reduction in
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
eel fisheries instead. Since there is very limited information on catches, this requiredna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
ment and other management measures are hard to evaluate. Some limited landings
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
data have been reported to ICES in recent years (ICES, 2019), showing landings of
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
just over 500 kg. No recreational catches were reported. According to M. Piria (pers.
.saes htob ni
comm., 2020), there is no management framework for European eel in Croatia and
-control
bo na tand
aht denforcement
eveileb ssecoof
rpeel
mrfishing
ofer ehtactivities
ni stnapiiscitpoor.
rap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dExtrapolated
na esicerfrom
p eItaly/WKEELMIGRATION,
rom a“ ni tluser 2020.
dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
This approximate
” kMediterranean
cotperiod
s hsfiofnmigration
esilver
vig eel
a for
gand
nsilver
itthrough
ceeel
ffainpers.
nSlovenia
oitcomm.
autand
is Other
yCroatia
ticasources
pwas
ac obtained
gwere
nihsWKEELMIGRATION
fifrom
ehta paper
fo erby
utFabrizio
c(2020)
ip dand
eliated
-Capoccioni
woH 85.on
rCountry
ebmeReports
M eritouqICES.
er ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
6
7
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
There
is little comprehensive
Croatia, and
it seems
the
Commission
and others research
will not conducted
be able to on
geteel
a in
satisfactory
overview
ofnecthe
essary to establish
management
plan forifcontinuous
monitoring. Only
eels inside
situation.
This can,ahowever,
be rectified
adequate supplementary
information
is
the National
Lake Vransko
arecurrent
protected.
After the Recommendation
provided.
ButPark
this Krka
is notand
required
under the
Guidelines.
GFCM/42/2018/1 on a multi-annual management plan for eels in the Mediterranean
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
Sea was agreed and transposed into EU legislation, a three-month closure on eel fishproblem, in the following terms:
ing was applied for the first time in 2020: from 1 June to 31 August.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
for eachYellow
fleet segment
Aggregated analyses across many
Lifeimbalance
stages exploited:
and silverseparately.
eel.
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.57
Habitat targeted: Neretva River; only recreational fishing in other rivers.
22
41
While
this advice
identifies
Commercial
fishery:
Yes the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
Recreational fishery: Yes
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregaClosure:
1 June to 31
August;
Applies toinasmuch
all fisheriesasand
all waters.
tion.
Unfortunately,
this
is misleading,
many
of the fleet segments as
8
currently
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated analyses
Glass eel arrival: December–March, with a peak in January
across
many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
Migration period silver eel: October–March, with a peak in November
required under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
fisheries
different
segments
Member
States
may be
get an
Not muchacross
is known
about eel
migrationand
times
in Croatia
but, based
oncrucial
the besttoavailable
knowledge,
the current
closure
is notbalance.
aligned with
theissue
silveriseel
migration,in
ormore
glass eel
arrival.
accurate
picture
of the
capacity
This
discussed
detail
in
section 2.6 below.
Greece
Greece used
to have a large
fishery
with landings
of overbalance
200 tonnes.
Today, the fish1.2.3.5
Geographical
basiseel
used
for stock
and capacity
assessment,
ery only
targets silver of
eels
during
their spawning migration. The most important area
and
for determining
fishing
opportunity
for eel fishing
is the north-west
region,
which
includes
many coastal
lagoons andshould
lakes,
Ideally,
the management
areas for
which
fishing
opportunities
are determined
where about
halfcovered
of the total
landings
are taken.When
In 2018,
tonnes of silver
eelfor
landings
match
the areas
by stock
assessments.
the41geographical
areas
which
were
reported
(prel.
data;
ICES,
2020d),
21
tonnes
less
than
the
year
before.
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
becomes
to a greater
There isfisheries
no glass management
eel or yellow eel
fishery,much
asidemore
from challenging,
a very limitedleading
traditional
fishery
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporfor yellow eel in western Greece for local consumption. Commercial exploitation of eels
tunities
are determined
differ from
the areas forfishing
whichhas
capacity
balance issince
assessed,
smaller than
30 cm is prohibited.
All recreational
been prohibited
1971.
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
It is also forbidden to fish for eels in rivers and estuaries.
fishing opportunities.
The official three-month closure is from 1 September to 30 November, but in reality it
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misis longer. The fishery for silver eel is only open in December–February, resulting in a
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
closure from March to November.
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Life stages exploited: Silver eel; local fishery for yellow eel.
OurHabitat
reviewtargeted:
of national
capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Mainly coastal lagoons but also some lakes.
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
Commercial fishery: Yes
areas
for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are deRecreational
No hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
termined, and onfishery:
the other
there
is often
no distinctionNovember;
made between
fishing in
Closure:
1 September–30
appliesvessels
to all fisheries
andthe
all eastern
waters. Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
Glass eel arrival: November–March in Sagiada; December–April in Alfios River
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
(Zompola et al., 2008).
in both seas.
Migration period silver eel: September–January, with a peak in December.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation
to present
capacity
by fleet
segment
result
in “a more
precise
There is some
alignment
between
the closure
andwould
the silver
eel migration
period,
butand
the
58
fishery
opens
at
peak
migration.
However,
the
closure
period
is
longer
than
mandated
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”. Howand glass
eel fishing
fishing are both
prohibited.
has taken
some
ever,
as noted
above,and
therecreational
European Commission’s
Guidelines
doGreece
not require
Member
good measures to protect European eel but could do more.
Guidelines, p. 4
Extrapolated
from Italy/WKEELMIGRATION, 2020.
57
8
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
42
eCyprus
ht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
sEuropean
i noitamreel
ofnisi ynot
ratnexploited
emelppusbyetCypriot
auqeda ffishing
i defiitcvessels
er eb ,and
revew
oh ,nacreports
siTh .nno
oitlandautis
Cyprus
.seniledCommission
iuG tnerruc eDecision
ht rednu2009/310/EC,
deriuqer ton sCyprus
i siht tuwas
B .dgranted
edivorp
ings of this species. Under
accordance
sexemption
iht gnigdelfrom
wonkthe
ca sobligation
drawot yawtoeprepare
ht fo traan
p oeel
g omanagement
d senilediuGplan
s’noisinsim
moC eTh
with Council Regulation 1100/2007.
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
For
the
n
o sn
oisabove
ulcnocreasons,
ward otno
nothree-month
itanibmoc ni eel
desfishing
u eb ot closure
dednetnhas
i erbeen
a srotset
acidby
niCyprus.
eTh
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
Mediterranean regional conclusions
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-In
agethis
rggareport,
hcus dwe
iovaare
ot only
tneiclooking
ffius si )at
epythe
t raEU
eg nMember
iam dna States.
htgnel However,
lessev yb dthe
enfiagreeed sa(
sment
a stneunder
mges the
teeflGeneral
eht fo yFisheries
nam sa hCommission
cumsani ,gnidfor
aelthe
sim Mediterranean
si siht ,yletanut(GFCM)
rofnU .noon
it
sEuropean
esylana deeel
tag(Recommendation
ergga elihw ,suTh .GFCM/42/2018/1)
kcots hsfi eno nahprovides
t erom teagrframework
at denfied similar
yltnerrutoc
hthe
guoEU’s
htla(for
lufmanagement
esu eb ton yaof
m eEuropean
tatS rebmeel
eMacross
eno nthe
i sewhole
irehsfiregion.
tnereffIn
id yterms
nam sof
sothe
rca
lthree-month
audividni foclosure,
sesylanait dgoes
etagebeyond
rgga ,)2the
hpEU
argalegislation
rapbus )2(2for
2 ethe
lcitrother
A redregions,
nu deriuasqeitr
n
a teg otfreshwater
laicurc ebfisheries
yam setaastSwell.
rebm
M dnabestnworthwhile
emges tnerto
efflook
id ssoatrcimplemena seirehsfi
includes
Itewould
n
i
l
i
a
t
e
d
e
r
o
m
n
i
d
e
s
s
u
c
s
i
d
s
i
e
u
s
s
i
s
i
Th
.
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
t
c
i
p
etaofruthis
cca
tation of the closures in all Mediterranean states but this is outside the scope
wolebprovision
6.2 noitcas
es
report, which takes the 2017 Joint Declaration on eel and the first .legal
its starting point.
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
There are some uncertainties to consider ywhen
tinutrcalculating
oppo gnihstotal
fi fo glandings
ninimreof
tedeel
roin
f dEU
na
Member
States
in
the
Mediterranean.
ICES
landings
data
does
not
separate
Atlantic
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
Mediterranean
France,
hand
cihw
rof saera lacihlandings
pargoeg efor
ht nSpain
ehW .sand
tnem
ssessa kso
coyou
ts ybhave
derevtooclook
saeraatehnational
t hctam
reports,
which
are
less
accessible.
There
is
also
a
greater
uncertainty
related
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa erto
a srecrekcots
ational
catches
in
the
region.
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-Glass
roppoeelgnfishing
ihsfi hcin
ihwEUroMember
f saera laStates
cihparginoethe
g ehMediterranean
t nehw ,ylralimregion
iS .gnihissfilimited,
revo fo kand
sir
,most
dessescountries
sa si ecnaldo
ab not
yticatarget
pac hcthem.
ihw roOnly
f saeraSpain
eht mand
orf rItaly
effid report
denimrglass
eted eel
era catches,
seitinut
dand
na the
yticatotal
pac tlandings
eefl neewfor
teb2019
ecnawere
lab laround
autca eh1ttonne.
ssessa As
ot eeach
lbissoglass
pmieel
ylraisenestimated
semocebto
ti
.seitinto
inutralmost
oppo g4nimilhsfi
weigh around 0.266 grams (Appelbaum et al., 1998), it translates
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
-lion
simindividuals,
neve ro sselgbut
nincompared
aem semocwith
eb tnAtlantic
emssessacatches
ecnalabitytisicfairly
apac emarginal
ht ,esac t–sronly
ow eh1.8
t n%I
sofAthe
.decEU
udeglass
r ro deel
eficatch
itnediisebtaken
ton lin
liwthe
ytiMediterranean
capacrevo taht region.
ksir ehtNone
gnisaof
ercthe
ni ,catches
gnidael
are
recreational.
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
There is a substantial commercial fishery for yellow and silver eel in the region. In
r2019,
etpahthe
C nEU
i noMember
iger aeS States
citlaB ereported
ht ni strolandings
per ecnaof
labaround
yticapa450
c lantonnes,
oitan foand
weiifvewe
r ruexO
dtrapolate
nah eno figures
eht no from
neewtGreece
eb seicnfrom
aperc2018,
sid laof
cih41patonnes,
rgoeg sutotal
oirescatch
era erwould
eht tahbe
t saround
wohs 2
-490
ed etonnes
ra seitin. Italy,
utropFrance,
po gnihsSpain
fi hcihand
w roGreece
f saera (in
dnadescending
dessessa eraorder)
skcotstake
hcihmost
w rofofsathe
era
,catch.
elpmaSlovenia
xe roF .dehas
ssesclosed
sa si yall
ticaits
paceelhcfisheries
ihw rof sand
aerathe
dnreported
ah rehto Croatian
eht no dnlandings
a ,denimare
ret
d
na clow.
itlaBThere
nretsis
aealso
eht anirecreational
gnihsfi slessfishery
ev neewfor
tebeel
edin
amthe
noregion,
itcnitsidestimated
on nefto to
si more
ereht
very
ethan
dam30notonnes,
itcnitsidalmost
on sem
emwhich
os si erisehreported
t ,esroWfrom
.citlaItaly.
B nreSeveral
tsew ehtcountries
ni gnihsfiand
esoreht
allitof
ggions
nihsfihave
esohprohibited
t dna aeS hrecreational
troN eht ni geel
nihfishing.
sfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
In the Mediterranean region, Member States can chose to close any three consecutive
-months
bo na tatohtfishing,
deveilebbut
ssethe
corpintent
mrofeto
r eprotect
ht ni stneel
apimigration
citrap emoremains
s ,mrofeand
r 310the
2 ehclosures
t reft A
dapply
na esto
iceall
rp waters,
erom aincluding
“ ni tlusertransitional
dluow tnemwaters
ges teeand
fl yfreshwater.
b yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
All of
the Memberand
States
havewill
closed
eel fisheries
at least three
consecutive
the
Commission
others
not their
be able
to get a for
satisfactory
overview
of the
months, though
closures
maybe
berectified
applied if
differently
different lifeinformation
stages and/or
situation.
This can,
however,
adequate for
supplementary
is
regions, and
in France
differ
betweenGuidelines.
freshwater and marine waters.
provided.
Butclosure
this is periods
not required
under
the current
Some have completely prohibited some fisheries, but only Slovenia, Andalusia in
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
Spain and 11 Italian regions have prohibited all fisheries for eel. Murcia in Spain, as
problem, in the following terms:
well as France (including Corsica) have prohibited all glass eel fisheries. The comThe indicators
are intended
to be used
in combination
draw conclusions
on
plete closure
in Andalusia
is particularly
important,
as all eelsto
migrating
to and from
imbalance forSea
each
segment
separately.
many
the Mediterranean
willfleet
come
through
the StraitAggregated
of Gibraltaranalyses
and areacross
particularly
57
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
vulnerable passing through this relatively narrow strait.
22
43
While
this advice
the aggregation
of differentthe
fisheries
(i.e. different
Mediterranean
EUidentifies
Member States
have implemented
three-month
closurestocks
in all
targeted)
unhelpful,
implies
that ensuring
separateistreatment
eacheelsegment
waters, forasall
life stagesitand
all fisheries.
The exception
the Italianof
glass
fishery
for restocking
When
wemain
look at
thetype)
overlap
between the
closures
and
the eel
(as
defined bypurposes.
vessel length
and
gear
is sufficient
to avoid
such
aggregamigration
periods,
however,
it
is
clear
that
the
intent
of
the
closures
is
not
consistently
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
followed. Mediterranean
Member
States
close while
their fisheries
outside
the
currently
defined target EU
more
than one
fishgenerally
stock. Thus,
aggregated
analyses
migration periods, with some allowing fishing at the peak of silver eel migration.
across
many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
required
under
Article
22(2) periods
subparagraph
aggregated
ofthan
individual
Information
on eel
migration
in this2),
region
is moreanalyses
uncertain
in the
fisheries
across
segments
and for
Member
mayon
bemigration
crucial toperiods
get an
Atlantic and
thedifferent
Baltic. There
is a need
furtherStates
research
accurate
picture
of the capacity
This
issue is eel
discussed
more detailwas
in
at regional
and national
level. Inbalance.
July 2020,
a GFCM
researchinprogramme
section
2.6which
below.will cover management and stock recovery, monitoring, data colleclaunched,
tion and stock assessment. We hope that improved scientific advice will be used to
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis used
for stock
and capacity
balance
design better
timed closures,
resulting
in better
protection
of eel assessment,
migration.
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
PEAK
GREECE
CROATIA
SLOVENIA
9 and 11 regions
Corsica
(freshwater)
Corsica
(marine waters)
Rhone: other sectors
(freshwater)
Rhone: sectors 13+30
(freshwater)
Rhone
(marine waters)
Murcia
C. Valenciana
Catalonia (all life stages)
Glass eel
PEAK
16–28
FEB
Closure all eel fisheries in 9 EMUs
Closure yellow eel fishery
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Closure silver eel fishery 2 March–30 September
Closed throughout – no glass eel fishery
Closure silver eel fishery 1 April–30 November
Closed throughout – no commercial fishing of eel < 38 cm
Alicante: Closure yellow & silver eel fisheries 1 May–30 October
Valencia: Closure yellow & silver eel fisheries 1 May–30 September
Closure glass eel fishery 1 April–31 October
Closure all life stages 21 March–20 June
APR
1 July–31 August
11 regions - all eel fisheries closed throughout
Closed throughout – no silver eel fishery
Closure silver eel 15 February–15 September
Closure yellow eel fishery
Closed throughout – no glass eel fishery
Closed throughout – no silver eel fishery
Closure silver eel fishery 15 October–31 August
MAR
Closure periods
Closure yellow eel fishery
JAN
Silver eel
Figure 5. Closure periods for for 2020-2021, and migration periods for silver and glass eel in the Mediterranean basin.
SPAIN
FRANCE
ITALY
OCT
DEC
15 October–15 March
NOV
Overall conclusions and recommendations
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided.
this is not
under
the current
Guidelines.
European But
eels migrate
at required
least 5 000
km from
the western
margin of their continental
22
45
habitat
in Europe toGuidelines
spawn in the
theyway
have
to swimacknowledging
even further when
The
Commission’s
do Sargasso
go part Sea;
of the
towards
this
migratinginfrom
Baltic terms:
and Mediterranean seas. The three-month fishery closures
problem,
the the
following
were a compromise agreement, attempting to protect this large-scale migration but
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
avoid a full prohibition of all eel fisheries in coastal and marine waters.
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
57
fisheries
in one Member
Stateacross
are not
In thisdifferent
report, we
have assessed
compliance
theuseful.
EU Member
States with the
legal
requirement
to
annually
close
the
fishery
for
three
months,
and
the intent
to
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different
stocks
protect the
assessment,
we have
lookedtreatment
at five keyof
aspects:
targeted)
asmigration.
unhelpful,In
it our
implies
that ensuring
separate
each segment
(as defined
bythe
vessel
lengthState
and main
geareeltype)
is sufficient
avoid such months?
aggrega1. Does
Member
close its
fisheries
for threetoconsecutive
tion.2.Unfortunately,
this include
is misleading,
as many
of theand,
fleet
Does the closure
coastalinasmuch
and transitional
waters
in segments
the case ofas
currentlythe
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated
analyses
Mediterranean, freshwater?
across
fisheries
in eel
onelife
Member
3. many
Doesdifferent
the closure
cover all
stages? State may not be useful (although
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),incidental
aggregated
analyses of individual
4. Does the closure cover all fisheries and
catches?
fisheries
across
and
States
mayof be
crucial
to silver
get an
5. Does
thedifferent
closure(s)segments
align with
theMember
migration
periods
glass
eel and
accurateeel?
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
If so, to what extent?
section 2.6 below.
For each Member State, we have looked at the overall landings, the composition of that
catch and
where it wasbasis
caught.
Wefor
have
found
gaps
in reporting
andassessment,
difficulty to access
1.2.3.5
Geographical
used
stock
and
capacity
balance
and
for determining
opportunity
detailed
information. of
Wefishing
have not
included information about illegal, unreported and
unregulated
catches. This areas
majorfor
problem
is outside
the scope ofare
thisdetermined
report.
Ideally,
the management
which fishing
opportunities
should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
In February 2020, ICES WKEELMIGRATION published a similar assessment of the
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are detersituation in 2019. The conclusions were: 161 eel fishing closures were submitted in the
mined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
ICES Data Call. Of these, 126 followed the EU legislation (ICES region and GFCM
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporbasin), and 35 did not. The reasons for non-compliance were: closures were outside of
tunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
the required date range, closures did not apply over three consecutive months, and/or
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
closures did only partially cover the temporal and spatial requirements.
fishing opportunities.
In the
thisworst
report,
wethe
have
lookedbalance
at the assessment
closures inbecomes
each Member
State or
a year
In
case,
capacity
meaningless
even later
mis(2020/2021
provisions).
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
aMain
result,conclusions
it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
• Most Member States are not in compliance with the intent of the law,
Our review
of national
capacity
balance
reports
in temporal
the Balticmigration
Sea regionpatterns
in Chapter
regarding
the closures
being
consistent
with
2 shows that
there are
geographical
between
on the one hand
of European
eel.serious
The initial
agreementdiscrepancies
set out to protect
the spawning
areas formigration
which stocks
are assessed
andtheir
areasmigration
for whichperiod
fishing
opportunities
of silver
eels, taking
into
considerationare determined,
anddeciding
on the other
handthree
areasmonths
for which
capacity
is assessed.
For was
example,
when
on which
the closure
should
apply. This
then
there is often
no distinction
vessels
fishing
thearrival
eastern
Balticeels.
and
extended
to cover all made
eel lifebetween
stages, and
therefore
alsointhe
of glass
those fishing
in the western
Baltic.
Worse, there
sometimes
Two countries
(Ireland
and Slovenia)
have is
prohibited
all no
eel distinction
fisheries, andmade
betweenthe
vessels
fishing
in the Baltic,
those fishing
in the North
and those
fishing
closure
in another
two countries
(the Netherland
andSea
Portugal)
is fully
in both seas.
aligned with the peak silver eel migration and includes all waters. There are
regional
provisions
that prohibit
silver
and/orprocess
glass eel
fishing,that
or closely
After thealso
2013
reform,
some participants
in the
reform
believed
an obmigration.
In general,
closures
either
have
some
overlapand
ligation match
to present
capacity
by fleethowever,
segmentthe
would
result
in “a
more
precise
theofmigration
andcapacity
are likelysituation
to have some
effects,
or there
little 58orHowdetailed with
picture
the fishing
affecting
a given
fish isstock”.
no overlap
dormancy);
i.e. the fishery
basicallydo
opens
againMember
once
ever, as noted
above,(winter
the European
Commission’s
Guidelines
not up
require
migration begins, or the closure applies only after the main migration period.
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
46
with
eht f•o wThe
eivremajority
vo yrotcof
afsthe
itascoastal
a teg oEU
t elMember
ba eb tonStates
lliw swere
rehtoindcompliance
na noissimm
oC the
eht
si noitamlegal
rofnrequirements
i yratnemelppset
us eout
tauin
qedregulations
a fi defiitc2020/123
er eb ,revand
ewo2019/2236.
h ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
• All coastal Member States have closures that apply for three consecutive
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
months. Many countries have longer or additional closures that apply to
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
one or more life stages, or separate closures for different life stages.
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynam• ssoThe
rca majority
sesylana dofetMember
agerggA States
.yletaracomply
pes tnem
ges the
teeflspatial
hcae rrequirements
of ecnalabmi for
with
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
sfi waters
tnereffsuch
id
the closures, i.e. “in Union waters of the ICES area and brackish
waters”
skcots tnas
ereestuaries,
ffid .e.i( scoastal
eirehsfilagoons
tnereffand
id ftransitional
o noitagergg
a eht sor,
efiiin
tnthe
edi ecase
civdof
a sthe
iht elihW
Mediterranean
region
“in
all
marine
waters
of
the
Mediterranean
Sea,
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa including
)detegrat
-agergga freshwaters
hcus diovaand
ot ttransitional
neicffius sibrackish
)epyt rawaters,
eg niamsuch
dnaashlagoons
tgnel leand
ssevestuaries”.
yb denfied sa(
sa stnemSome
ges tego
efl beyond,
eht fo ynincluding
am sa hcinland
umsaniwaters
,gnidawhen
elsim not
si sirequired.
ht ,yletanIn
utrseveral
ofnU .noit
countries,
coastal
lagoons
are
considered
“inland
waters”
in
national
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
theetregulation
hguohtlalegislation,
( lufesu eb but
ton in
yam
atS rebmethey
M enshould
o ni sebe
irecovered
hsfi tnerby
effthe
id yclosure,
nam ssorca
even
in
the
Union
waters
of
the
ICES
area.
In
some
cases,
we
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rehave
dnu not
deribeen
uqer
able
to
find
full
information
about
the
spatial
provision.
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
• The closures generally include all life stages, but different stages
.wolebmay
6.2 nbe
oitces
covered by different closures. France and Spain have a particularly complex
range of closures that varies for different regions and life stages.
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
• When it comes to whether the closure(s) cover all fisheries, there are two
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
different issues that deserve attention. Not all closures clearly include
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
recreational fisheries. We have not observed any provisions in the closure
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
regimes regarding the inclusion of “incidental fisheries” – basically bycatch
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
of European eel in other fisheries. In the Baltic Sea region, some countries
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
provide landings data from bycatch and have a system where fishers are
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
required to register catches of eel, but most of the Member States do not
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
seem to report and register bycatch.
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim•nevSeveral
e ro sselcountries,
gninaem seincluding
moceb tneDenmark,
mssessa ecthe
nalaNetherlands,
b yticapac ehSweden
t ,esac tsand
row Italy,
eht nI
sA .decuallow
der rolandings
defiitneand
di ebsales
tonduring
lliw ytithe
capclosed
acrevo period,
taht ksiafter
r ehtkeeping
gnisaerclive
ni ,eels
gnidael
lliw tahtinsnsubmerged
oisiced ekatstorage
ot sregcontainers
anam seireor
hsfiland-based
rof tlucffitanks.
id erom
sem
oceb tia ,whole
tluser a
This
creates
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d wolla
range of issues related to control and enforcement.
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
Other aspects to consider
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-In
edour
era analysis,
seitinutrowe
ppofound
gnihsthat
fi hciassembling
hw rof saeraandnaccurate
a dessesstime
a era sline
kcotfor
s hceel
ihwmigration
rof saera
is
complex,
particularly
for
the
silver
eel.
The
ICES
Special
Request
Advice
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denon
imthe
ret
temporal
d
na citlaBmigration
nretsae ehpatterns
t ni gniof
hsfiEuropean
slessev neel
eew(Anguilla
teb edamanguilla)
noitcni(ICES,
tsid on2020b)
nefto sand
i erethe
ht
report
from
the
workshop
(ICES
WKEELMIGRATION,
2020)
have
been
key
sources
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gofniinformation.
hsfi esoht dnaWe
aeShave
htroalso
N ehreviewed
t ni gnihscientific
sfi esoht ,cliterature,
itlaB eht nnational
i gnihsfiauthority
slessev nepubliewteb
cations, and included personal communications with national eel scientists.
.saes htob ni
more
-There
bo naistaan
ht evident
deveilebneed
ssecofor
rp m
roferpublished
eht ni stndata
apicion
trapeelemmigration.
os ,mroferWe
310have
2 eht found
reft A
anglers,
dthat
na efishermen,
sicerp erom
a“ ni national
tluser dluscientists
ow tnemand
ges tmanagement
eefl yb yticapbodies
ac tnehave
serp knowledge
ot noitagil
5
patterns.
.” kcots hsfi
nevig a We
gnitstrongly
ceffa noitadvocate
autis yticfor
apaca gconsistent
nihsfi eht transfer
fo erutcipofdknowleliated
-ofwoeel
H 8migration
redge
ebmamong
eM eriuactors,
qer tontoodincorporate
senilediuG its’nin
oisthe
simscientific
moC naepliterature
oruE eht and
,evobadvice.
a deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
We understand
political
during overview
peak migration,
the
Commissionthe
and
othersdifficulty
will not of
beclosing
able tothe
getfisheries
a satisfactory
of the
as fishing during
thehowever,
migrationbeisrectified
commonifpractice.
Many
fisheries specifically
target
situation.
This can,
adequate
supplementary
information
is
the arrivalBut
of glass
theunder
silverthe
eel current
migration.
Closing the fisheries during
provided.
this iseels
notand/or
required
Guidelines.
the migration periods would mean closing the fisheries, or at least displacing the
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
fishing effort to other times of the year. Like any fisheries closure, it requires comproblem, in the following terms:
mitment to protect a vulnerable species and political clout. Currently, some counThe indicators
are intended
be used
combination
on
tries even
spell out that
they havetochosen
theinthree
months to
in draw
such conclusions
a way that the
eachon
fleet
separately.
Aggregated
analyses
across many
closureimbalance
limits thefor
effects
thesegment
fishing sector
– rather
than saves
the eels.
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
However, the effectiveness of this measure does not only depend on the closures
While
thisthe
advice
identifies periods,
the aggregation
fisheries
(i.e.in
different
stocks
matching
eel migration
but alsoofondifferent
the fishing
patterns
each Member
targeted)
unhelpful,
it very
implies
that ensuring
treatment
of each
segment
State. It isas“easy”
but not
effective
in termsseparate
of eel recovery
to close
coastal
and
(as
defined
by
vessel
length
and
main
gear
type)
is
sufficient
to
avoid
such
aggregamarine waters to fishing during peak migration, if most of the fishing takes place in
tion.
thiswe
is misleading,
inasmuch
as many
of the fleet segments
as
inlandUnfortunately,
waters. Therefore
have attempted
to include
this information
in our analcurrently
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated
analyses
ysis. It is particularly puzzling why several countries fail to comply with the intent of
across
many–different
fisheries
in one
Member
State
may not
be useful
(although
the closures
i.e. close during
peak
migration
– even
though
it would
hardly
matter,
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),
aggregated
analyses
of
individual
as over 90 % of the fishery is inland and doesn’t need to be included.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
Another picture
aspect worth
on is thatThis
in the
closuredetail
is well
accurate
of thereflecting
capacity balance.
issueNetherlands,
is discussedthe
in more
in
matched
with
the
migration
period
–
though
there
is
some
evidence
that
migration
section 2.6 below.
is happening slightly later in recent years due to physical changes in temperatures
and water
flow. It covers
allused
waters
all and
fisheries
and has
been assessment,
in place since 2009
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis
forand
stock
capacity
balance
– much
than the
EU agreement
on the closures. Even so, the eel landings have
and
for longer
determining
of fishing
opportunity
been
increasing
rather
than
decreasing.
is likely
due to fisheries
in the NetherIdeally, the management areas for which This
fishing
opportunities
are determined
should
lands
targeting
yellow
eels,
which
do
not
migrate
in
the
same
way,
and
therefore
fishmatch the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
eries
are
not
affected
by
the
closures
to
the
same
extent.
Whether
the
fishing
pattern
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are deteris a result
of displacement
of effort,
or an
increase
fishing effort,
afterto
thea closure
mined,
fisheries
management
becomes
much
moreinchallenging,
leading
greater
was
implemented,
or
if
it
was
always
like
this,
is
unclear.
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing oppor-
22
47
tunities
are determined
from the areas
for which
capacity
is assessed,
The question
is: if there differ
is displacement
of effort
from silver
eel balance
to yellow
eel, how
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
does that affect the results of the closures? How much more yellow eel can you land
fishing
opportunities.
before the
indirect effect on the numbers of migrating silver eels outweigh the protection
offered
bythe
a ”correct
closure”?
In
the worst
case,
capacity
balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
Regional reflections
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
All European
belongs
to the same population, which is listed as Critically Endanallow
depletedeel
stocks
to recover.
gered, and to support the recovery of the population, the whole geographical range
Our
reviewtoofbenational
capacity
balance
reportsthere
in theare
Baltic
Sea region
will need
taken into
account.
However,
arguments
for ina Chapter
regional
2coordination
shows that there
are
serious
geographical
discrepancies
between
on
the
one
hand
of efforts as well, as there are differences between the regions and
it
areas
for
which
stocks
are
assessed
and
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
are
deis thought that mature eels from different regions may have different roles to play
termined,
and onFor
the example,
other hand
forregion
which “produces”
capacity is more
assessed.
Forand
example,
in reproduction.
theareas
Baltic
larger
older
there
is
often
no
distinction
made
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
eastern
Baltic
and
female eels, whereas there are indications that the eel mature faster in the Mediterthose
fishing
in the
western
Worse, there
no distinction
made
ranean,
and that
more
males Baltic.
are “produced”
there,isassometimes
well as among
eels that spend
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
their life in coastal waters. This variation and sexual dimorphism most likely affects
in
both seas. success. We just don’t know quite how yet.
reproductive
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obWith the adoption of the GFCM Recommendation on European eel (GFCM/42/2018/1)
ligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
in 2018, the Mediterranean region has a coordinated approach to the recovery of Eudetailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 Howropean eel. However, the current measures are temporary and the development of
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
48
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
eand
ht fdecision
o weivreon
vo more
yrotcalong-term
fsitas a temeasures
g ot elba will
eb toben crucial.
lliw sreThere
hto dnisa less
noiscoordination
simmoC eht
toocreate
sini nthe
oitaother
mrofntwo
i yrregions.
atnemelpInputhe
s etBaltic
auqedaregion,
fi defian
itceambition
r eb ,revew
h ,nac asi“coordinated
Th .noitautis
programme to ensure.sesuccessful
nilediuG teel
nermigrations
ruc eht redfrom
nu dethe
riuqBaltic
er tonSea
si sdrainage
iht tuB .dbasin
edivortop
natural spawning grounds” has been part of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
since 2007, but little progress has been made to date.
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Aocoordinated
approach
Mediterranean
as
n
snoisulcnoc w
ard ot noin
itathe
nibm
oc ni desu eb oand
t dedthe
netBaltic
ni era regions
srotacidnisi crucial,
eTh
between
yall
nathe
m seels
sorcainseeach
sylanregion
a detaghave
erggto
A .pass
yletathrough
rapes tnethe
mgrelatively
es teefl hcnarrow
ae rof ecstraits
nalabm
i
Gibraltar and Morocco,
75 and between Sweden and Denmark, where they are par.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
ticularly vulnerable to fishing. On the other hand, the Atlantic region consists of
seel
kco“heart
ts tnerland”
effid .–e.it
i( siseithe
rehscore
fi tnearea
reffifor
d fothe
noipopulation
tagergga ehtand
sefiwhere
itnedi ethe
civdvast
a sihmajority
t elihW
tofneglass
mgeseels
hcaearrive,
fo tnemaking
mtaert eefforts
tarapestognprotect
irusne tthem,
aht seiimprove
lpmi ti ,lmigration
ufplehnu saroutes
)detegand
rat
-restore
agerggahabitats
hcus diparticularly
ova ot tneicffi
u
s
s
i
)
e
p
y
t
r
a
e
g
n
i
a
m
d
n
a
h
t
g
n
e
l
l
e
s
s
e
v
y
b
d
e
n
fi
e
d
sa(
important.
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
both.kcacross
sEel
esyfisheries
lana detaare
gervery
gga evariable
lihw ,suTh
ots hsand
fi enwithin
o nahtregions,
erom tebut
gratadbrief
enfiecomparison
d yltnerruc
on
the
regional
level
is
valid,
particularly
as
they
are
under
partially
different
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssmanorca
lagement
audividnframeworks.
i fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
Eel landings – a regional look
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
Looking at landings from 2019 (ICES, 2020), including some extrapolations, it is
.woleb 6.2 noitces
apparent that the Baltic region takes the largest proportion of yellow and silver eel –
over 1 100 tonnes – followed by the Atlantic region – an estimated 856 tonnes – and
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
then around 520 tonnes in the Mediterranean EU Member States. In the Baltic, a
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
very substantial part of the estimated landings are recreational: at least 342 tonnes,
dorluover
ohs d30
en%,
imwhereas
reted eraitseisitilikely
nutrop
ihsfi
hcih10w %roin
f sathe
eraAtlantic
tnemegaregion
nam ehand
t ,yllover
aedI
topobegnless
than
h5 c%ihin
w the
rof sMediterranean.
aera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
Baltic
allenthe
rFor
etaenatural
rg a ot reasons,
gnidael ,there
gnigneisllano
hcglass
eromeel
hcfishing
um semin
ocethe
b tn
emegregion.
anam seAlmost
irehsfi ,d
im
region
-glass
roppeel
o glandings
nihsfi hciin
hwthe
roEU
f saare
era taken
lacihpin
argthe
oegAtlantic
eht nehw
,ylral–imaniSestimated
.gnihsfirev54o tonnes
fo ksir
,landed
dessessin
a sFrance,
i ecnalabSpain
yticaand
pac Portugal.
hcihw rofFrance
saera eis
htresponsible
morf reffidfor
denover
imre80
ted% eof
rathe
seitglass
inut
deel
nalandings
yticapacin
teeboth
fl nee2018
wteband
ecn2019
alab according
lautca eht to
ssethe
ssa olatest
t elbiICES
ssopmdata,
i ylraeincluding
n semocebthe
ti
UK. With the UK leaving the EU, the French share of the glass.seeel
itinlandings
utroppoisgnlikely
ihsfi
to be around 90 %. In the Mediterranean EU Member States, only Spain and Italy
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
reported limited glass eel landings of around 1 tonne in 2019. This is less than 2 %
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
of the total EU landings. Only Spain allows a limited recreational fishery for glass
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
eel: reported landings were 865 kg in 2019 and 662 kg in 2020. That may not sound
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
like much, but with each European glass eel estimated to weigh around 0.266 grams
r(Appelbaum
etpahC ni noetigal.,
er a1998),
eS citlthe
aB recreational
eht ni stropecatch
r ecnain
lab2020
yticconsists
apac lanof
oitalmost
an fo w2.5
eivmillion
er ruO
dindividuals,
nah eno ehputting
t no neetotal
wtebEU
seicglass
napeeel
rcsilandings
d lacihpaat
rgoover
eg s200
uoirmillion.
es era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,Regional
elpmaxe rcompliance
oF .dessessawith
si yticlosures
capac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
As
far
as
we
can
tell,
compliance
legal
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slwith
essev the
neew
teb provisions
edam noitcfor
nitsthe
id oclosures
n nefto has
si erimeht
proved
since
the
ICES
Special
Request
Advice
only
last
year.
All
EU
Member
States
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
ghave
nihsimplemented
fi esoht dna aefishing
S htroNclosures
eht ni gfor
nihat
sfi least
esohtthree
,citlaconsecutive
B eht ni gnihmonths
sfi slessewithin
v neewthe
teb
set time period, and overall they are mostly in compliance in terms of the.swaters
they
aes htob ni
cover. In addition, the vast majority are also applying the closures to all life stages
-and
bo nall
a tfisheries
aht deve–ileinb the
ssecrequired
orp mrofwaters.
er eht nMost
i stnaMember
picitrap eStates
mos ,m
rofealso
r 310implement2 eht reft A
have
dednaadditional
esicerp erfisheries
om a“ nilimitations,
tluser dluosuch
w tneasmclosures
ges teeflapplying
yb yticaptoacparticular
tneserp owaters,
t noitagto
il
85
.” kcotlife-stages,
s hsfi nevigora gone
nitcor
effmore
a noitfisheries.
autis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
-one
woH
or more
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
OnlyCommission
two Memberand
States
– Ireland
andbeSlovenia
have
banned all fishing
for of
Eurothe
others
will not
able to –get
a satisfactory
overview
the
pean eel, whether
recreational.
An additional
three countries
– Porsituation.
This can,commercial
however, beorrectified
if adequate
supplementary
information
is
tugal, Greece
Sweden
– haveunder
banned
recreational
fishing for European eel.
provided.
But and
this is
not required
theallcurrent
Guidelines.
There are also a number of regional total bans, such as Andalusia in Spain and the 11
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
Italian regions where all eel fishing was prohibited already in 2009, and most of the
problem, in the following terms:
Spanish regions have banned recreational fishing.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
A regional
comparison
of fleet
the compliance
in implementing
the analyses
closures across
is less interimbalance
for each
segment separately.
Aggregated
many
esting,different
as general
compliance
is
high
and
both
the
closures
and
the
fisheries
are so
57
fisheries in one Member State are not useful.
variable, but the Baltic region has taken a somewhat coordinated approach from the
While
this advice
identifies
thefor
aggregation
of coastal
different
fisheries
different
stocks
start, with
one closed
period
marine and
waters
that(i.e.
is more
or less
the
targeted)
as
unhelpful,
it
implies
that
ensuring
separate
treatment
of
each
segment
same in all the countries. The other regions show no such alignment in the approach.
(as
defined
by vessel
length
main gear
type) is sufficient
to avoid such
aggregaFrance
and Spain
both
have aand
complex
combination
of closures/fishing
periods
mantion.
Unfortunately,
this
is
misleading,
inasmuch
as
many
of
the
fleet
segments
as
aged on a regional basis, making the analysis of their effectiveness more difficult,
currently
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated
analyses
even though some may be well targeted to protect eels at the relevant time.
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
There is no
specific
time 22(2)
period
set for the three-month
closures
in the
required
under
Article
subparagraph
2), aggregated
analyses
of Mediterraindividual
nean
region;
Member
States
can
chose
any
three
consecutive
months,
but
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to the
get inan
tent to protect
remains
and the
to all in
waters,
accurate
picturetheofmigration
the capacity
balance.
Thisclosures
issue isapply
discussed
moreincluding
detail in
transitional
waters and freshwater. All of the EU Member States in the region have
section
2.6 below.
closed their eel fisheries for at least three consecutive months, though closures may
be applied
differently basis
for different
stages
and/or
regions,
and assessment,
for freshwater and
1.2.3.5
Geographical
used forlife
stock
and
capacity
balance
marine
This isofprobably
the most variable region, but part of the reason for
and
for waters.
determining
fishing opportunity
this
may
be
that
the
provision
also
coversfishing
all lifeopportunities
stages, all fisheries
and all waters.
Ideally, the management areas for which
are determined
should
match
theintent
areas covered
by stock
assessments. When the geographical areas for which
Regional
to protect
migration
stocks
are
assessed
differ
from
the
for whichthe
fishing
opportunities
aremigradeterFinally, looking at the regional levelsareas
and assessing
closures
against the eel
mined,
fisheries
much
more
challenging,
leading
to a greater
tion periods,
ourmanagement
conclusion isbecomes
that none
of the
regions
are doing
particularly
well.
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporThe figures we have produced to provide some overview of migration times and the
tunities
determined
from that
the areas
which
capacity
balance
is assessed,
closures are
(pages
19, 32–33,differ
44) show
mostfor
of the
closures
only
partially
overlap
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
with the migration.
fishing opportunities.
In the Baltic region, it is clear that the majority of the Baltic Member States have
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misclosed their fisheries after the main migration and the main fishing season. In addileading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
tion, much of the fishing for eel takes place in inland waters, and as a result a closure
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
in marine and coastal waters has a more limited effect.
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Overall,
the of
measures
by the
countries
in in
thethe
Atlantic
region
provide
better
Our
review
nationaltaken
capacity
balance
reports
Baltic Sea
region
in Chapter
silverareeelserious
migration.
Aside from
the total closure
Ireland
andhand
the
2protection
shows thatforthere
geographical
discrepancies
betweeninon
the one
region
of
Andalusia,
Portugal
and
the
Netherlands
closely
match
the
silver
eel
miareas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are degration period
with
closures,
and the
closures
cover all
fisheries in
waters,
termined,
and on
thetheir
other
hand areas
for which
capacity
is assessed.
Forallexample,
going
beyond
the
EU
legislation.
France
and
northern
Spain
(aside
from
Galicia)
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
effectively
protect
coastalBaltic.
migration
of silver
as any silver
fishing ismade
prothose
fishing
in thethe
western
Worse,
there eel,
is sometimes
no eel
distinction
hibited.
Looking
at
the
closures
and
where
the
eel
fisheries
take
place,
there
is
also
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishinga
greater
in
both overlap
seas. than in the Baltic Sea region, as many of the closures apply to both
marine/coastal and inland waters. The picture changes with the glass eel fisheries; the
After
the 2013
reform,
some participants
in the reform
process
believed
thattheanpeak
obthree main
countries
– France,
Spain and Portugal
– all allow
fishing
during
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
arrival period. The exceptions are Ireland and the French region of Bretagne, where
detailed
the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 Howglass eel picture
fishing isofprohibited.
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
22
49
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
50
eInhtthe
fo Mediterranean,
weivrevo yrotcawe
fsithad
as a less
teg detailed
ot elba edata
b toon
n lleel
iw migration
srehto dnatimes,
noissibut
mmlooking
oC eht
sati nthe
oitoverlap
amrofnibetween
yratnemthe
elppclosures
us etauqand
edathe
fi deel
efiimigration
tcer eb ,revperiods,
ewoh ,nitacissiclear
Th .nthat
oitauthe
tis
intent of the closures.seisninot
lediconsistently
uG tnerruc efollowed.
ht rednu dSeveral
eriuqeroftothe
n siMediterranean
siht tuB .dedivoEU
rp
Member States are closing their fisheries outside of the migration periods, allowing
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
fishing to continue during peak migration, particularly silver eel migration. In fact,
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
some are blatantly opening their fisheries again just as the migration period starts.
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
yThere
nam sissono
rcadoubt
sesylathat
na dmuch
etagercan
ggAbe
.yldone
etaraptoesimprove
tnemgesthe
teeprotection
fl hcae rof eofcnthe
alabeel
mimigrations in all the regions75through
better
targeted
closures,
particularly
in
the
Mediter.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
ranean. However, the Baltic region lands more than double the amount of yellow and
ssilver
kcotseel,
tnerhas
effirelatively
d .e.i( seirepoor
hsfi toverlap
nereffidwith
fo nomigration
itagergga etimes,
ht sefiand
itnedmuch
i ecivd
sihtfishing
elihW
ofa the
ttakes
nemgplace
es hcainland
e fo tnand
emtis
aetherefore
rt etarapenot
s gncovered
irusne taby
htthe
seilclosures.
pmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sRecommendations
a stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sThe
esylthree-month
ana detagerggclosures
a elihw have
,suThbeen
.kcotapplied
s hsfi enacross
o nahthe
t eroEU
m tfor
egrthree
at denyears
fied ynow.
ltnerThe
ru c
hscope
guohof
tla(the
lufclosures
esu eb tohas
n ybeen
am ebroadened
tatS rebmeand
M egeneral
no ni secompliance
irehsfi tnerhas
effidimproved
ynam ssoyear
rca
lon
audyear,
ividnbut
i foas sthis
esylareport
na deshows,
tagerggthe
a ,)2EUhpisarstill
garafar
pbufrom
s )2(protecting
22 elcitrA the
redmigration
nu deriuqof
er
n
a tesensitive
g ot laicspecies.
urc eb yEuropean
am setatSeelreremains
bmeM dclassed
na stnas
emCritically
ges tnereEndangered
ffid ssorca s(IUCN,
eirehsfi
this
n
i
l
i
a
t
e
d
e
r
o
m
n
i
d
e
s
s
u
c
s
i
d
s
i
e
u
s
s
i
s
i
Th
.
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
t
c
i
p
e
tarucca
2018) and the most recent ICES advice (ICES, 2020) shows that recruitment remains
.woclose
leb 6to
.2 nzero
oitcas
es
at a very low level and calls for all anthropogenic mortality to be as
possible. So why are the closures not working very well?
1.
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
One of the main reasons is a lackytof
protect
inupolitical
troppo gwillingness
nihsfi fo gnto
inim
reted rthe
of dna
European eel. Despite its status as Critically Endangered it continues to
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
be targeted by both commercial and recreational fishing in a majority of
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
Member States. The closures themselves were a compromise reached after
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
the Commission proposed adding European eel to the “prohibited species
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
list” in 2017.
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
2. The intention of the closures – to protect eel migration – is not spelt out
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
clearly enough in the legal text. In the legal preamble of the regulations,
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
the wording is: “As the fishing closure period should be consistent with the
-sim nevconservation
e ro sselgninobjectives
aem semoset
cebout
tnin
emCouncil
ssessa eRegulation
cnalab ytic(EC)
apacNo
eht1100/2007
,esac tsro(3)
w and
eht nI
sA .decuwith
der rthe
o dtemporal
efiitnedimigration
eb ton llpatterns
iw yticaof
paEuropean
crevo taheel,
t ksfor
ir the
eht Union
gnisaewaters
rcni ,gof
nithe
dael
lliw tahtICES
snoisarea
iceditekisaappropriate
t ot sreganatomsetseitireinhsthe
fi rperiod
of tlucbetween
ffiid ero1 m
semo2020
ceb tand
i ,tlu28ser a
August
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
ed woorlla
February 2021.” It is not referring specifically to the spawning migration,
retpahC peak
ni nomigration,
iger aeS citmuch
laB ehless
t ni introducing
stroper ecnaitlabdirectly
yticapainto
c lanthe
oitalegal
n fo articles
weiver rinuO
dnah enothe
ehregulations.
t no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpm3.axeAnother
roF .dessproblem
essa si ytisicthat
apac we
hcido
hwnot
rof have
saeraall
dnthe
ah rinformation
ehto eht no we
dnaneed
,dento
imret
assess
and
evaluate
their
effectiveness.
We
need
a
better
understanding
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si erofeht
edam noregional,
itcnitsid national
on semitand
emoslocal
si ermigrations
eht ,esroWof.ciboth
tlaB nglass
retseeel
w eand
ht nsilver
i gniheel.
sfi We
esoht
also
need
better
landing
data.
In
its
Special
Request
Advice,
ICES
points
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
out that if “seasonal closures will be a significant tool for eel conservation
.saes htob ni
and management, reporting landings by month should be included in
-bo na taroutine
ht deveidata
leb scalls.”
secorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
4. The regulations
wherewill
thenot
provisions
included,overview
fixing of the
the Commission
and others
be able are
to currently
get a satisfactory
fishing
opportunities
for EU
stocks, dosupplementary
not create an effective
situation.annual
This can,
however,
be rectified
if adequate
information is
It requires
a renewed
commitment
by the Fisheries
provided.legal
Butframework.
this is not required
under
the current
Guidelines.
Council of Ministers every year and, more importantly, does not provide
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
for any regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the measure, nor for any
problem, in the following terms:
involvement from the co-legislator: the European Parliament.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
We recommend
to improve
theAggregated
protection analyses
of the eelacross
migrations
imbalancethe
for following
each fleet steps
segment
separately.
many
57
to support
the recovery
eel population:
different
fisheries of
in the
oneEuropean
Member State
are not useful.
While
thethree-month
aggregation of
different
fisheries
• this
Theadvice
intentidentifies
behind the
closures
– to
protect(i.e.
thedifferent
spawnersstocks
targeted)–asshould
unhelpful,
it implies
of each segment
be made
clear inthat
the ensuring
legal text.separate
With thetreatment
current wording:
(as defined
by vessel length
andtemporal
main gear
type) is patterns
sufficientoftoEuropean
avoid such
“consistent…
with the
migration
eel”aggregait
tion. Unfortunately,
is misleading,
inasmuch
as manyThe
of only
the fleet
has been lostthis
in the
sea of “fairness
and equality”.
clearsegments
language as
currentlywas
defined
more
one fish stock.
Thus,
in thetarget
Council
andthan
Commission
PR from
the while
initialaggregated
agreement analyses
in
across many
different
one Member
maythe
notintent
be useful
(although
December
2017.fisheries
The bestinoption
would beState
to state
in both
the
requiredpreamble
under Article
subparagraph
2), out
aggregated
analysesofof
and in 22(2)
the legal
article setting
the boundaries
theindividual
closures.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate
picture of of
thethecapacity
balance.
Thiswas
issue
is discussed
moreofdetail in
• Regardless
language,
the intent
pretty
clear, andinmost
section 2.6
thebelow.
Member States are not following it. Without a better alignment
with migration, the effects of the closures will be negligible. Better
implementation
canused
be supported
by adjusting
period
set for the ICES
1.2.3.5 Geographical
basis
for stock and
capacity the
balance
assessment,
and for determining
of fishing
opportunity
area. For example,
if the
closure had to take place during September to
December,
instead
of for
August
tofishing
February,
it would create
a better overlap
Ideally, the
management
areas
which
opportunities
are determined
should
with
silver
eel
migration.
Another
option
is
to
increase
the
closure
from
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
three
to four
months.
stocks are
assessed
differ
from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
Aside fromSimilarly,
the Mediterranean
the current
notopportake
risk •of overfishing.
when the region,
geographical
areas provision
for which does
fishing
into
account
where
the
eels
are
caught.
A
closure
in
marine
and
coastal
tunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
waters
will
have limited
effectthe
if 95%
of the
fishery
is in inland
waters. This
it becomes
nearly
impossible
to assess
actual
balance
between
fleet capacity
and
can
only
be
addressed
by
including
all
waters,
as
has
been
agreed
in
the
fishing opportunities.
Mediterranean region.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
• In order to properly evaluate the effectiveness of the closures and make
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
further improvements to the legal provision, more timely and detailed
allow depleted stocks to recover.
data on eel migration is needed together with a better break-down of
Our review
of national
capacity
balance
reports
in in
thetime
Baltic
region in Chapter
catches
and landings
of all
life stages
both
andSea
geographically.
We
2 shows that
there
arewhether
serious geographical
between
onCollection
the one hand
cannot
judge
this is better discrepancies
done under the
EU Data
areas forFramework
which stocks
assessed
and
areas
for which fishing opportunities are deorare
specific
ICES
data
calls.
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there• is often
distinction
fishing in
If the no
legal
provisionmade
for thebetween
closuresvessels
was included
in,the
for eastern
example,Baltic
the and
those fishing
in theMeasures
western regulation
Baltic. Worse,
there
sometimes
made
Technical
instead
of is
dealt
with onno
an distinction
annual basis,
its
implementation
be assured
and
it would
be subject
to
betweenlong-term
vessels fishing
in the Baltic,would
those fishing
in the
North
Sea and
those fishing
regular evaluations of its effectiveness.
in both seas.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an ob• Further technical measures to protect this sensitive species should be
ligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
considered. The objectives of the Technical Measures regulation specifically
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
22
51
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
52
eht fo wmention
eivrevo ythe
rotprotection
cafsitas a tof
eg juveniles
ot elba eand
b tospawning
n lliw sreaggregations.
hto dna noisEuropean
simmoC eht
toelspawn
si noitameel
rofisnithought
yratnem
ppus eat
taugreat
qedadepth
fi defiinitcthe
er eSargasso
b ,revewSea,
oh ,nbut
ac on
siThits.nlong
oitautis
journey there,
parts
.senitilisedforced
iuG tnto
err“aggregate”
uc eht rednon
ud
eriuqoferits
tospawning
n si siht tumigration
B .dedivorp
route, when passing through the Strait of Gibraltar and the strait and
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
sounds between the Baltic and the Atlantic. Additional temporal closures
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
could be used to protect European eel spawners, specifically targeting these
no snoisu“bottlenecks”
lcnoc ward oon
t nothe
itan
ibmigration
moc ni desroute.
u eb oAs
t delong
dnetas
nifishing
era sroby
taciSweden
dni eThand
eel
ynam ssoDenmark
rca sesylais
naallowed
detagerto
ggcontinue
A .yletarain
pethe
s tnnarrow
emges twaters
eefl hcabetween
e rof ecnthem,
alabmiti also
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
s
fi
t
n
ereffidas
discourages conservation measures in countries east of these passages,
skcots tn“saved
ereffideels”
.e.i( are
seirlikely
ehsfi tto
nebe
reffcaught
id fo non
oitatheir
gerggway
a ehout
t setowards
fiitnedi ethe
civdSargasso
a siht eliSea.
hW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-ager•gga Illegal,
hcus diunreported
ova ot tneicand
ffiusunregulated
si )epyt raeg(IUU)
niamfishing
dna htfor
gneleel
lesissealready
v yb denafied sa(
insathis
sa stnemmassive
ges teeflproblem
eht fo ynot
namcovered
sa hcum
ni ,greport.
nidaelsAny
im siloopholes
siht ,yletaenabling
nutrofnU .noit
such
practises
should
be
closed,
unless
strict
traceability,
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat control
denfiedand
yltnerruc
enforcement
can
be
ensured.
For
that
reason,
it
is
preferable
that
the
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam sthreesorca
laudividnmonth
i fo seclosure
sylana also
detaapplies
gergga to
,)2 landings
hpargaraand
pbusales,
s )2(2even
2 elcthough
itrA reeel
dnucatches
deriuqer
na teg oare
t lairegularly
curc eb ykept
am salive
etatSinrcorves
ebmeMand
dnsold
a stnlater.
emges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
• In 2018, European eel was added to the Specific Control and
.woInspection
leb 6.2 noitces
Programmes (SCIPs) by Commission Implementing Decision (EU)
2018/1986 for all EU regions – the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, Western
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
Waters and the North Sea. Theseytmonitoring
inutroppo gprogrammes
nihsfi fo gninshould
imretecover
d rof dna
inspections at sea and in port at the point of landing (before first sale),
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
and are implemented through a Joint Deployment Programme (JDP) for
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
each region. It would be good to add control of the eel fishing closures as a
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
Specific Action to each of the JDPs.
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-The
roppcurrent
o gnihsclosures
fi hcihwhave
rof snot
aerastopped
lacihpaseveral
rgoeg ecountries
ht nehw ,from
ylralim
iS .gnihsfitheir
revocatches
fo ksir
increasing
,over
dessethe
ssa same
si ecntime
alab period.
yticapacEven
hcihwith
w rofperfectly
saera ehtaligned
morf rand
effidfully
deniimplemented
mreted era sethreeitinut
dmonth
na yticclosures,
apac teeflthis
neconservation
ewteb ecnalabmeasure
lautca eishtless
sseeffective
ssa ot elband
issopmore
mi yldifficult
raen semto
oceconb ti
.seitinuatrdisplacement
oppo gnihsfi
trol than a full prohibition of eel fishing. A prohibition also prevents
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
fishing
-ofsim
neve effort
ro sselgand
ninlandings
aem semoto
ceother
b tnemmonths,
ssessa ecother
nalablife
yticstages
apac eor
ht other
,esac tareas.
srow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
Considering its conservation status and the annual scientific advice on fishing oplliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
portunities, the continued widespread targeting of European eel is really unaccept.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
able. The population is below any conceivable biological reference points, and conrtinued
etpahCfishing
ni noiis
getherefore
r aeS citlaalso
B ehat nbreach
i stropof
er the
ecnCommon
alab yticapFisheries
ac lanoitPolicy
an fo wobjectives,
eiver ruO
dasnawell
h enas
o ethe
ht nobjectives
o neewtebofsethe
icnatechnical
percsid lameasures
cihpargoeregulation
g suoires eand
ra erthe
eht ambitions
taht swohsof2
-the
ed EU
era Biodiversity
seitinutroppoStrategy
gnihsfi under
hcihw the
rof Green
saera dDeal
na detosseprotect
ssa era biodiversity
skcots hcihwand
rofsensisaera
,tive
elpmspecies.
axe roFReflecting
.dessessa sthe
i ytsense
icapacofhcurgency
ihw rof and
saerproviding
a dnah rehthe
to esame
ht nolegal
dnaprotection
,denimret
d
citsimilarly
laB nretsathreatened
e eht ni gnispecies,
hsfi slesEuropean
sev neewteeel
b edshould
am noibe
tcnadded
itsid oto
n nthe
eftoAnnex
si erehIt
asnafor
eofdathe
m nTechnical
oitcnitsidmeasures
on semitframework
emos si erehRegulation
t ,esroW .c2019/1241,
itlaB nretsprohibiting
ew eht ni gnall
ihstargeted
fi esoht
gfishing.
nihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
References
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided. But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
Aalto, E., Capoccioni, F., Terradez Mas, J., Schiavina, M., Leone, C., De Leo, G. &
The
Commission’s
Guidelines do
part
the wayEuropean
towards eel
acknowledging
this
Ciccotti,
E. (2016). Quantifying
60 go
years
of of
declining
(Anguilla anguilla
problem,
in
the
following
terms:
L., 1758) fishery yields in Mediterranean coastal lagoons. ICES Journal of Marine
Science,The
73(1):
101–110.are
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv084
indicators
intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
imbalance
for eachK.,fleet
segment
separately.
AggregatedH.
analyses
acrossD.many
Amilhat,
E., Aarestrup,
Faliex,
E., Simon,
G., Westerberg,
& Righton,
57
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
(2016). First evidence of European eels exiting the Mediterranean Sea during their
22
53
spawning
Scientific
6: 21817.
While
thismigration.
advice identifies
thereports,
aggregation
of https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21817
different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
targeted)
as unhelpful,
it implies
that ensuring
separateG.treatment
each segment
Amilhat, E.,
Farrugio, H.,
Lecomte-Finiger,
R., Simon,
& Sasal, P.of(2009).
(as
defined
by
vessel
length
and
main
gear
type)
is
sufficient
to
avoid
such
aggregaSilver eel population size and escapement in a Mediterranean lagoon: Bages-Sigean,
tion.
Unfortunately,
this is misleading,
inasmuch
as many
of the fleet segments as
France.
Knowledge & Management
of Aquatic
Ecosystems,
5: 390–391.
currently
defined
target
more
than
one
fish
stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated analyses
https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2009005
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
Appelbaum,
S., Chernitsky,
A. subparagraph
& Birkan, V. (1998).
Growth observations
required
under
Article 22(2)
2), aggregated
analyses of on
individual
European
(Anguilla
Anguilla
L)
and
American
(Anguilla
Rostrata
Le
Sueur)
eels.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucialglass
to get
an
Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 349: 187–193.
accurate
picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section
2.6A.,
below.
Aranburu,
Díaz, E. & Briand, C. (2016). Glass eel recruitment and exploitation in a
South European estuary (Oria, Bay of Biscay). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(1): 111–121.
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basisrelatif
used for
capacity
balance européenne
assessment,
Arrêté du
28 octobre 2013
auxstock
dates and
de pêche
de l’anguille
and for determining of fishing opportunity
(Anguilla anguilla) de moins de 12 centimètres.
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
Arrêté du 5 février 2016 relatif aux périodes de pêche de l’anguille européenne
match
the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
(Anguilla anguilla) aux stades d’anguille jaune et d’anguille argentée.
stocks
are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
management becomes
much more challenging,
to a greater
Arribas,fisheries
C., Fernández-Delgado,
C., Oliva-Paterna,
F. J. & Drake,leading
P. (2012).
risk
of overfishing.
Similarly, when
the geographical
areas
for whichoffishing
opporOceanic
and local environmental
conditions
as forcing
mechanisms
the glass
eel
tunities
are determined
differ from
the areasestuary.
for which
capacity
balance
is Shelf
assessed,
recruitment
to the southernmost
European
Estuarine,
Coastal
and
it
becomes
impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
Science,
107:nearly
46–57.
fishing opportunities.
Aschonitis, V. G., Castaldelli, G., Lanzoni, M., Merighi, M., Gelli, F., Giari, L.,
In
the worst
theE.capacity
assessment
becomes
or and
even misRossi,
R. andcase,
Fano,
A. (2017).balance
A size-age
model based
on meaningless
bootstrapping
leading,
that
overcapacity
will not
be identified
orL.reduced.
Bayesianincreasing
approachesthe
to risk
assess
population
dynamics
of Anguilla
anguilla
in semi-As
aclosed
result,lagoons.
it becomes
more
difficult for
fisheries
managers to take decisions that will
Ecology
of Freshwater
Fish,
26(2): 217–232.
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Aschonitis, V., Castaldelli, G., Lanzoni, M., Rossi, R., Kennedy, C., & Fano, E.
Our
review
of national
capacity
balance reports
in theeelBaltic
Sea region
Chapter
A. (2017).
Long-term
records
(1781–2013)
of European
(Anguilla
anguillainL.)
2production
shows thatinthere
are serious Lagoon
geographical
the one
hand
the Comacchio
(Italy):discrepancies
evaluation ofbetween
local andonglobal
factors
areas
for which
stocks are assessed
areasConservation:
for which fishing
opportunities
are deas causes
of the population
collapse.and
Aquatic
Marine
and Freshwater
termined,
on502–520.
the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
Ecosystems,and
27(2):
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
Bajinskis, Jānis (pers. comm. 2020), Fish Resources Research Department, BIOR, Latvia.
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
Baker, R.vessels
R. (1978).
Thein
Evolutionary
Ecology
of Animal
Migration.
New
York,
NY:
between
fishing
the Baltic, those
fishing
in the North
Sea and
those
fishing
Holmes
and
Meier.
in both seas.
Basioli,the
J. (1957a).
Freshwater
from the
of the
People’s
Republic
of an obAfter
2013 reform,
somefisheries
participants
in territory
the reform
process
believed
that
Croatia into1956.
Ribarstvo
Jugoslavije,
12(1).segment
17–19. (inwould
Croatian)
https://hrcak.srce.hr/159191
ligation
present
capacity
by fleet
result
in “a more precise and
58
detailed
the fishing
capacity
situation
given fish 12(3):
stock”.43–46.
HowBasioli, J.picture
(1957b).ofFisheries
of the
Neretva
River.affecting
RibarstvoaJugoslavije,
ever,
as
noted
above,
the
European
Commission’s
Guidelines
do
not
require
Member
(in Croatian)
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
54
eBernotas,
ht fo weiPriit
vrevo(pers.
yrotccomm.
afsitas 2020),
a teg oChief
t elbaspecialist
eb ton l&
liwChair
srehtof
o dHydrobiology
na noissimmoand
C eht
sfisheries,
i noitamEstonian
rofni yratUniversity
nemelppusofetLife
auqeSciences.
da fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senM.,
iledSaks,
iuG tL.,
nerEschbaum,
ruc eht redR.,
nu dVerliin,
eriuqerA.
ton&sJärvalt,
i siht tuA.
B .(2015).
dedivorp
Bernotas, P., Vetemaa,
sDynamics
iht gnigdeoflwEuropean
onkca sdreel
awolandings
t yaw ehand
t fostocks
trap oing the
od coastal
senilediwaters
uG s’noofissEstonia.
immoC eTh
ICES Journal of Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv245
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Bertin,
n
o snoisL.ulc(1951).
noc wLes
ard anguilles.
ot noitaniVariation,
bmoc ni decroissance,
su eb ot deeuryhalinite´,
dnetni era srotoxicite´,
tacidni eTh
hermaphrodisme
juvénile
et
sexualité,
migrations,
métamorphoses.
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof Paris:
ecnalaPayot.
bmi
75
.
l
u
f
e
s
u
t
o
n
e
r
a
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
e
n
o
n
i
s
e
i
r
e
h
s
fi
t
n
e
r
e
ffid
Briand, C., Fernández-Delgado, C., Zamora. L, Jiménez, F., Evans, D. & Díaz, E. (2019).
Biology,
sDoes
kcotas tbigger
nereffglass
id .e.eel
i( smean
eirehsbetter
fi tnerrecruitment?
effid fo noitaEels
gergg
a eht sMonitoring,
efiitnedi eciManagement,
vda siht elihW
Culture
and
Exploitation:
Proceedings
of
the
First
International
Eel
Science
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnuSymposium.
sa )detegrat
-Bruijs
agerggM.C.M.
a hcus d&
iovDurif,
a ot tnC.M.F.
eicffius(2009).
si )epytSilver
raeg nEel
iamMigration
dna htgneland
lessBehaviour.
ev yb denfieIn:
d sa(
svan
a stden
nemThillart,
ges teefl eG.,
ht fDufour,
o ynam S.
sa &
hcRankin
umsani ,J.C.
gnid(eds)
aelsimSpawning
si siht ,ylMigration
etanutrofnU
oit
of .n
the
sEuropean
esylana deEel.
tageFish
rgga &
eliFisheries
hw ,suThSeries,
.kcots30:
hsfi65–95.
eno nSpringer,
aht erom Dordrecht.
tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9095-0_4
guohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
Capoccioni,
Aguzzi,
n
a teg ot laiF.,
curCosta,
c eb yaC.,
m Canali,
setatS rE.,
ebm
eM dnJ.,
a sAntonucci,
tnemges tnF.,
ereRagonese,
ffid ssorcaS.s&
eirehsfi
Bianchini,
M.
L.
(2014).
The
potential
reproductive
contribution
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fof
o Mediterranean
erutcip etarucca
migrating eels to the Anguilla anguilla stock. Scientific reports, 4(1): 1–7.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Capoccioni, F., Leone, C., Belpaire, C., Malarvannan, G., Poma, G., De Matteis,
,tnemssL.,
essContò,
a ecnalM.,
ab yFailla,
ticapaS.,
c dCovaci,
na kcotsA.ro&f dCiccotti,
esu sisabE.la(2020).
cihparQuality
goeG 5.3.2.1
G., Tancioni,
y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o
g
n
i
h
s
fi
f
o
g
n
i
n
i
m
r
eted roand
f dna
assessment of escaping silver eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) to support management
dconservation
luohs denimstrategies
reted era sin
eitiMediterranean
nutroppo gnihscoastal
fi hcihwlagoons.
rof saerEnvironmental
a tnemeganamMonitoring
eht ,yllaedI
hand
cihAssessment,
w rof saera 192(9):
lacihpa1–22.
rgoeghttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08533-6
eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-Clavero,
reted erM.
a se&itiHermoso,
nutroppoV.gn(2015).
ihsfi hHistorical
cihw rof data
saeratoehplan
t mothe
rf recovery
reffid deof
ssethe
ssa European
era skcots
reel.
etaJournal
erg a otofgnApplied
idael ,gnEcology,
ignellah52(4):
c ero960–968.
m hcum shttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12446
emoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
& rVieira,
,Cobo,
dessessF.,
a sSánchez-Hernández,
i ecnalab yticapac hciJ.hw
of saerR.
a eh(2014).
t morSeasonal
f reffid dedownstream
nimreted era seitinut
movements
of
the
European
eel
in
a
Southwestern
Europe
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbiriver
ssopm(River
i ylraeUlla,
n semNW
oceb ti
Spain). Nova Acta Científica Compostel, 21: 77–84.
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-Correia,
sim neveM.
roJ.,
sseDomingos,
lgninaem seI.,mSantos,
oceb tneJ.,mLopes,
ssessa eV.,
cnade
labLeo,
yticG.
apa&c eCosta,
ht ,esaJ.c tL.sro(2019).
w eht nI
Challenges
to
reconcile
conservation
and
exploitation
of
the
threatened
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercAnguilla
ni ,gnidael
languilla
liw taht(Linnaeus,
snoisiced 1758)
ekat oin
t sSanto
reganaAndré
m seirelagoon
hsfi ro(Portugal).
f tlucffiid eOcean
rom se&mCoastal
oceb ti ,tluser a
Management, 181, 104892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104892
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rCouncil
etpahCof
nithe
noiEuropean
ger aeS ciUnion
tlaB eh(2018).
t ni stDocument
roper ecnal5382/18
ab yticaofpa16c January
lanoitan2018:
fo wJoint
eiver ruO
Declaration
on
strengthening
the
recovery
for
European
eel
(Commission
and
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht tahtMember
swohs 2
-States):
ed era shttps://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5382-2018-INIT/en/pdf
eitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,Creutzberg,
elpmaxe roFF..d(1961).
essessaOn
si ythe
ticaorientation
pac hcihw rof
of migrating
saera dnahelvers
rehto(Anguilla
eht no dvulgaris
na ,denTurt.)
imret
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o
s
i
ereht
in tidal area. Nether-lands Journal of Zoology, 1(3): 257–338.
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
de Casamajor, M.N., Bru, N. & Prouzet, P. (1999). Influence de la luminosité nocturne
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
et de la turbidité sur le comportement vertical de migration de la civelle d’anguille
.saes htob ni
(Anguilla anguilla L.) dans l’estuaire de l’Adour. Bull. Ft. Pêche Piscic. 355: 327–347.
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
Dekker, W., Bryhn, A., Magnusson, K., Sjöberg, N. & Wickström, H. (2018).
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
Assessment of the eel stock in Sweden, spring 2018. Third post-evaluation of the
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
Swedish Eel Management Plan, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
Drottningholm Lysekil Öregrund. 113 pp.
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Desaunay,
Y. & Guerault,
D. (1997).
Seasonal
changes overview
in biometrics
the
Commission
and others
will not
be ableand
to long-term
get a satisfactory
of the
of eel larvae:
a possible
relationship
between
recruitment
variation and
North
situation.
This
can, however,
be rectified
if adequate
supplementary
information
is
Atlantic ecosystems
Journalthe
of Fish
Biology,
51: 317–339.
provided.
But this is productivity.
not required under
current
Guidelines.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb06106.x
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
Domingos,
M.following
(1992). The
fluctuation of glass eel migration in the Mondego
problem,
inI.the
terms:
estuary (Portugal). Irish Fisheries Investigations, Series A (Freshwater), 36: 1–4.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
Durif, imbalance
C., Elie, P.,for
Gosset,
C., Rives,
J. &separately.
Travade, F.Aggregated
(2003). Behavioral
each fleet
segment
analysesstudy
acrossofmany
57
downstream
migrating
by radio-telemetry
at anot
small
hydroelectric power plant.
different
fisherieseels
in one
Member State are
useful.
American Fisheries Society Symposium, 33: 343–356.
While this advice identifies the aggregation of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
Durif, C. M.
& Elie, P. (2008).
Predicting
downstream
migration
of silver
eels
in a
targeted)
as unhelpful,
it implies
that ensuring
separate
treatment
of each
segment
large
river catchment
based and
on commercial
fishery
Fisheries
Management
and
(as
defined
by vessel length
main gear type)
is data.
sufficient
to avoid
such aggregaEcology,
15(2):
127–137.
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
currently
defined target
moreMigration
than onedes
fishcivelles
stock. d’anguilles
Thus, while(Anguilla
aggregated
analyses
Elie, P. & Rochard,
E. (1994).
anguilla
across
differentmodalités
fisheries du
in one
MemberetState
may not bedes
useful
(although
L.) dansmany
les estuaires,
phénomène
caractéristiques
individus.
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),
aggregated
analyses
of
individual
Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisci-culture, 335: 81–98.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
Europeanpicture
Commission.
Proposal
forThis
a Council
fordetail in
accurate
of the (2017).
capacity
balance.
issue isRegulation
discussed fixing
in more
2018 the2.6
fishing
section
below.opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non Union
waters. Geographical
COM(2017)645basis
final,used
2017/0287
(NLE).
1.2.3.5
for stock
and capacity balance assessment,
22
55
and
for determining
of fishing opportunity
EU. (2007).
Council Regulation
(EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007
establishing
measures forareas
the recovery
the stock
of European
Official Journal
Ideally,
the management
for whichoffishing
opportunities
areeel.
determined
should
of the European
Union, by
L 248:
17–23.
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/1100/oj
match
the areas covered
stock
assessments.
When the geographical areas for which
stocks
are
assessed
differ
from
the
areas
for
which
fishing opportunities
are deterEU. (2009). Commission Decision of 2 April 2009 approving
requests by Cyprus,
mined,
fisheriesRomania
management
becomes for
much
more challenging,
leading totoa greater
Malta, Austria,
and Slovakia
exemption
from the obligation
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly,
when
the
geographical
areas
for
which
fishing
opporprepare an Eel Management Plan in accordance with Council Regulation
(EC)
No
tunities
areOfficial
determined
differ
from
the areas
for which
capacity balance is assessed,
1100/2007.
Journal
of the
European
Union,
L91: 23–24.
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
EU. (2018).
Council Regulation (EC) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing
fishing
opportunities.
opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters
In
theforworst
case,
the capacity
becomes
meaningless
or even misand,
Union
fishing
vessels, inbalance
certain assessment
non-Union waters,
and
amending Regulation
leading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity
will
not
be
identified
or
reduced. As
(EU) 2017/127. Official Journal of the European Union, L 27: 1–168.
ahttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/120/oj
result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
EU. (2019a). Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the
Our
review
of national
reports
in the Baltic
region
in Chapter
fishing
opportunities
forcapacity
certain balance
fish stocks
and groups
of fishSea
stocks,
applicable
in
2Union
showswaters
that there
are
serious
geographical
discrepancies
between
on
the
one
hand
and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. Official
areas
forofwhich
stocks areUnion,
assessed
and1–166.
areashttp://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/124/oj
for which fishing opportunities are deJournal
the European
L 29:
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
EU. (2019b).
Regulation
(EU)
2019/2236
of 16
December
fixing
for and
there
is oftenCouncil
no distinction
made
between
vessels
fishing
in the2019
eastern
Baltic
2020 the
fishing
for certain
stocks
and groupsnoofdistinction
fish stocks made
those
fishing
in opportunities
the western Baltic.
Worse,fish
there
is sometimes
applicable
in
the
Mediterranean
and
Black
Seas.
Official
Journal
of
the those
European
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and
fishing
Union,
L
336:
14–25.
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/2236/oj
in both seas.
EU (2020).
COUNCIL
2020/123
27 January
2020 that
fixingan obAfter
the 2013
reform, REGULATION
some participants(EU)
in the
reformofprocess
believed
for
2020
the
fishing
opportunities
for
certain
fish
stocks
and
groups
of
fish
stocks,
ligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise
and
applicable
in
Union
waters
and,
for
Union
fishing
vessels,
in
certain
non-Union
58
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”. Howwaters.
Journal
the European
Union, LGuidelines
25: 1–156. do not require Member
ever,
as Official
noted above,
theofEuropean
Commission’s
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/123/oj
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
56
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
eEU
ht (2021a).
fo weivrCouncil
evo yrotRegulation
cafsitas a te(EU)
g ot 2021/90
elba eb ofto28
n lJanuary
liw sreh2021
to dnfixing
a noisfor
sim2021
moCthe
eht
forelp
certain
sfishing
i noitaopportunities
mrofni yratnem
pus etafish
uqestocks
da fi dand
efiitcgroups
er eb ,rofevfish
ewostocks
h ,nac applicable
siTh .noitauintis
the Mediterranean and
.seBlack
nilediSeas.
uG tnOfficial
erruc ehJournal
t rednuofdthe
eriuEuropean
qer ton siUnion,
siht tuLB31:.dp.
ed1–19.
ivorp
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/90/oj
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
EU. (2021b). Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 :January
smret gn2021
iwolfixing
lof ehtfor
ni 2021
,melbthe
orp
fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. Official
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
Journal of the European
75 Union, L 31: 31–192. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/92/oj
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
Gascuel, D., Feunteun, E. & Fontenelle, G. (1995). Seasonal dynamics of estuarine
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
migration in glasseels (Anguilla anguilla). Aquatic Living Resources, 8(2): 123–133.
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:1995009.
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sGFCM.
a stnem(2018).
ges teeRecommendation
fl eht fo ynam sa GFCM/42/2018/1
hcumsani ,gnidaeon
lsima multiannual
si siht ,yletanmanagement
utrofnU .noit
splan
esylafor
na European
detagerggaeeleliin
hwthe
,suMediterranean
Th .kcots hsfi eSea.
no nIssued
aht erby
omthe
tegGeneral
rat denfiFisheries
ed yltnerruc
Commission
for
the
Mediterranean:
http://www.fao.org/gfcm/decisions/en/
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
lGosset,
audividC.,
ni fTravade,
o sesylanF.,
a Durif,
detagerC.,
ggaRives,
,)2 hpJ.,ar&gaElie,
rapbP.
us(2005).
)2(22 eTests
lcitrAof rtwo
ednutypes
deriof
uqer
n
a teg for
ot ldownstream
aicurc eb yam
setatS rof
ebeels
meMat dansmall
a stnehydroelectric
mges tnereffpower
id ssorplant.
ca seirRiver
ehsfi
bypass
migration
n
i
l
i
a
t
e
d
e
r
o
m
n
i
d
e
s
s
u
c
s
i
d
s
i
e
u
s
s
i
s
i
Th
.
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
t
c
i
p
e
t
a
r
ucca
Research and Applications, 21(10): 1095–1105.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Havs- och vattenmyndigheten. (2021). Fisk- och skaldjursbestånd i hav och
sötvatten
,tne2020:
mssesResursöversikt.
sa ecnalab yticRapport
apac dna2021:6.
kcots ISBN
rof de978-91-89329-05-8.
su sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutropP.,
poMoens,
gnihsfiT.,
fo gNagelkerke,
ninimretedL.A.J.,
rof dna
Huisman, J., Verhelst, P., Deneudt, K., Goethals,
dNolting,
luohs deC.,
nimReubens,
reted era J.,
seiSchollema,
tinutroppoP.P.,
gnihsWinter,
fi hcihwH.
roVf. s&aeMouton,
ra tnemegA.
an(2016).
am eht ,yllaedI
hHeading
cihw rofsouth
saera or
lacnorth:
ihpargonovel
eg ehtinsights
nehW .on
stneEuropean
mssessa ksilver
cots ybeeldeAnguilla
revoc saeanguilla
ra eht hctam
-migration
reted era sineitthe
inuNorth
troppoSea.
gnihMarine
sfi hciEcology
hw rof Progress
saera ehSeries,
t morf554:
reff257–262.
id dessessa era skcots
rhttps://doi.org/10.3354/meps11797
etaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-ICES.
roppo(2019).
gnihsfiEuropean
hcihw roeel
f sa(Anguilla
era lacihpanguilla)
argoeg ethroughout
ht nehw ,ylrits
alinatural
miS .gnirange.
hsfirevIn
o fo ksir
,Report
dessessaofsithe
ecnICES
alab yAdvisory
ticapac hcCommittee,
ihw rof saer2019.
a eht ICES
morf Advice
reffid d2019,
enimrele.2737.nea,
eted era seitinut
dhttps://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4825
na yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
ICES. (2020a). Workshop on the temporal migration patterns of European eel
-(WKEELMIGRATION).
sim neve ro sselgninaem sICES
emocScientific
eb tnemsseReports.
ssa ecnal2:25.
ab yt109
icappp.
ac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
shttp://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5993
A .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
ICES. (2020b). EU request on temporal migration patterns
.revocerofotEuropean
skcots deteel
elp(Anguilla
ed wolla
Anguilla) in all relevant ecoregions. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee,
r2020.
etpahICES
C ni Advice
noiger a2020,
eS citsr.2020.01,
laB eht ni https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5994
stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo weiver ruO
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
-ICES.
ed era(2020c).
seitinutJoint
roppoEIFAAC/ICES/GFCM
gnihsfi hcihw rof saeraWorking
dna dessGroup
essa eraonskEels
cots (WGEEL)
hcihw rof +saera
,associated
elpmaxe roCountry
F .dessesReports.
sa si yticaICES
pac hScientific
cihw rof sReports.
aera dnah2:85.
reh223
to epp.
ht no dna ,denimret
http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5982
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
eICES.
dam n(2020d).
oitcnitsEuropean
id on semieel
tem(Anguilla
os si ereanguilla)
ht ,esroWthroughout
.citlaB nreits
tsew
eht nirange.
gnihsIn
fi esoht
natural
gReport
nihsfi eof
sothe
ht dICES
na aeSAdvisory
htroN ehCommittee,
t ni gnihsfi e2020.
soht ,ICES
citlaBAdvice
eht ni g2020,
nihsfiele.2737.nea,
slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5898
-Italian
bo na Ministry
taht devDecree
eileb ssN°.
ecor403
p mofro25.07.2019
fer eht nisets
stnout
apicthe
itraprovisions
p emos ,mfor
rofthe
er 3Italian
102 ehclosure.
t reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
Jørgensen, C., Dunlop, E. S., Opdal, A. F. & Fiksen, Ø. (2008). The evolution of
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
spawning migrations: state dependence and fishing-induced changes. Ecology 89:
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1469.1
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Kara,Commission
M. H. & Quignard,
J. P. will
(2019).
in Lagoons
Estuariesoverview
in the of the
the
and others
notFishes
be able
to get a and
satisfactory
Mediterranean
3A: Migratory
Fish.
John Wiley
& Sons.supplementary information is
situation.
This can,
however, be
rectified
if adequate
provided.
this is not
requiredL.under
the current
Kettle, A. But
J., Asbjørn
Vøllestad,
& Wibig,
J. (2011).Guidelines.
Where once the eel and the
22
57
elephant
were together:
declinedo
of the
European
because
of changing
hydrology
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
go part
of theeelway
towards
acknowledging
this
in southwest
Europe
and northwest
Africa?. Fish and Fisheries, 12(4): 380–411.
problem,
in the
following
terms:
Lambert,
(2008). Evaluation
desto
effets
possibles
de différents
niveaux
de
TheP.indicators
are intended
be used
in combination
to draw
conclusions
on
re´duction
des
impacts
anthropiques
sur
le
temps
de
restauration
du
stock
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
d’anguille
européenne,
different
fisheriesp.in26.one Member State are not useful.57
Lennox,this
R.J.,
Paukert,
C.P., Aarestrup,
K., Auger-Méthé,
M., Baumgartner,
L., BirnieWhile
advice
identifies
the aggregation
of different fisheries
(i.e. different
stocks
Gauvin,
K.,
Bøe,
K.,
Brink,
K.,
Brownscombe,
J.
W
.,
Chen,
Y.,
Davidsen,
J.G.,
Eliason,
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
E.J.,defined
Filous, A.,
Gillanders,
I.P.,
Horodysky,
A.Z.,toJanuchowski-Hartley,
(as
by vessel
lengthB.M.,
and Helland,
main gear
type)
is sufficient
avoid such aggregaS.R.,
Lowerre-Barbieri,
S.K.,
Lucas,
M.C.,
Martins,
E.G.,
Murchie,
Pompeu,
P.S.,as
tion. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of theK.J.,
fleet
segments
Power, M.,defined
Raghavan,
R., more
Rahel,than
F.J., Secor,
D.,stock.
Thiem,Thus,
J.D., while
Thorstad,
E.B., Ueda,
H.,
currently
target
one fish
aggregated
analyses
Whoriskey,
F.G.
&
Cooke,
S.J.
(2019).
One
Hundred
Pressing
Questions
on
the
Future
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
of Global under
Fish Migration
Conservation,
Policy. Frontiers
in Ecology
and
required
Article Science,
22(2) subparagraph
2),and
aggregated
analyses
of individual
Evolution,
7:
286.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00286
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate
picture
the capacity
balance.
This issue
is discussed
in more
detail in
Ložys, Linas
(pers.ofcomm.
2020), Chief
Researcher
& Head
of Laboratory,
Laboratory
section
2.6 below.
of Fish Ecology,
Institute of Ecology, Nature Research Center, Lithuania.
MacNamara,
R., Koutrakis,
E.T., for
Sapounidis,
Lachouvaris,
D.,assessment,
Arapoglou, F.,
1.2.3.5
Geographical
basis used
stock andA.,
capacity
balance
Panora,
D.
&
McCarthy,
K.T.
(2014).
Reproductive
potential
of
silver
European eels
and for determining of fishing opportunity
(Anguilla anguilla) migrating from Vistonis Lake (Northern Aegean Sea, Greece).
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 15: 539. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.614
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
Moriarty,
(2003). A
review
of Eel
Irelandfishing
and Strategies
for future
stocks
areC.assessed
differ
from
theFisheries
areas forin which
opportunities
are deterdevelopment.
In D.A.
Dixon (ed.)
Biology,much
management
and protection
of catadromous
mined,
fisheries
management
becomes
more challenging,
leading
to a greater
eels, of
pp overfishing.
217–224. American
Fisheries
Symposiumareas
33, Bethesda,
Maryland.
risk
Similarly,
whenSociety
the geographical
for which
fishing opportunities
differkretanje
from the
areasjegulje
for which
capacity
balance
is assessed,
Morović,are
D. determined
(1948). Godišnje
ulova
i cipala
u donjoj
Neretvi.
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
Ribarstvo Jugoslavije (Croatian Journal of Fisheries), 3: 83–86.
fishing opportunities.
Pike, C., Crook, V. & Gollock, M. (2020). Anguilla anguilla. The IUCN Red List of
In
the worst
case, 2020:
the capacity
balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misThreatened
Species
e.T60344A152845178.
leading,
increasing
the
risk
that
overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T60344A152845178.en
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
Piria, depleted
Marina (pers.
2020), Prof. PhD, University of Zagreb, Faculty of
allow
stockscomm.
to recover.
Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, Beekeeping, Game Management and Special
Our
review
of national
capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Zoology,
Zagreb,
Croatia.
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
Poole,for
W.which
R., Reynolds,
J. D.
& Moriarty,
C. (1990).
Observations
on the silverare
eeldeareas
stocks are
assessed
and areas
for which
fishing opportunities
migrationsand
of the
River
system,
Ireland,
1959 tois1988.
Internationale
termined,
on Burrishoole
the other hand
areas
for which
capacity
assessed.
For example,
Revue
der
gesamten
Hydrobiologie
und
Hydrographie,
75(6),
807-815.
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those
in theL.western
Worse,
therethe
is sometimes
no distinction
Prigge,fishing
E., Marohn,
& Hanel,Baltic.
R. (2013).
Tracking
migratory success
of stockedmade
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
fishing
European eels Anguilla an-guilla in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 82(2):those
686–699.
in
both seas.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12032
After
theD.,
2013Westerberg,
reform, some
the reform
process P.,
believed
thatE.,
an obRighton,
H.,participants
Feunteun, E.,inØkland,
F., Gargan,
Amilhat,
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
Metcalfe, J., Lobon-Cervia, J., Sjöberg, N., Simon, J., Acou, A., Vedor, M., Walker,
58
detailed
picture
of the fishing
situation
affecting
a given
fish stock”.of HowA., Tancart,
T., Brämick,
U. &capacity
Aarestrup,
K. (2016).
Empirical
observations
the
ever,
as
noted
above,
the
European
Commission’s
Guidelines
do
not
require
Member
spawning migration of European eels: The long and dangerous road to the Sargasso
Sea. Science Advances, 2(10): e1501694. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501694
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
58
R.,
eSandlund,
ht fo weivO.
revT.,
o yDiserud,
rotcafsitO.
as H.,
a tePoole,
g ot elb
a eBergesen,
b ton lliwK.,srDillane,
ehto dnaM.,
noRogan,
issimmoG.,
C eht
of annual
sDurif,
i noitaC.,
mrThorstad,
ofni yratnE.
emB.elp&pVøllestad,
us etauqedL.
a fA.
i d(2017).
efiitcerTiming
eb ,reveand
wohpattern
,nac siTh
.noitautis
silver eel migration in
.setwo
niledEuropean
iuG tnerrwatersheds
uc eht rednuarededetermined
riuqer ton sibysihsimilar
t tuB .dcues.
edivorp
Ecology and Evolution, 7: 5956–5966.
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
Svärdson, G. (1976). The decline of the Baltic eel population.
:smret gnInstitute
iwollof ehof
t nFreshwater
i ,melborp
Research, Drottningholm, Report 55: 136–143
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
Biology
yTesch,
nam sF.-W.
sorca (1977).
sesylanThe
a deEel
tage-rgg
A .yletand
arapManagement
es tnemges teof
eflAnguillid
hcae rof eEels.
cnalaSpringer
bmi
7
5
Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-009-5763-3.
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
Aelterman,
sVerhelst,
kcots tneP.J.,
reffiBuysse,
d .e.i( seD.,
irehReubens,
sfi tnereffJ.,
idPauwels,
fo noitagI.,
ergg
a eht sefiitB.,
nedVan
i eciHoey,
vda sihS.,
t elihW
Goethals,
P.,
Coeck,
J.,
Moens,
T.
&
Mouton,
A.
(2018).
Downstream
migration
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )deteof
grat
-European
agergga heel
cus(Anguilla
diova ot anguilla
tneicffiuL.)
s siin)ean
pytanthropogenically
raeg niam dna htregulated
gnel lessevfreshwater
yb denfied sa(
ssystem:
a stnemImplications
ges teefl ehtfor
fo management.
ynam sa hcumFisheries
sani ,gnResearch
idaelsim199:
si si252–262.
ht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
shttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.10.018
esylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hVøllestad,
guohtla( lL.
ufA.,
esu Jonsson,
eb ton yB.,
am Hvidsten,
etatS rebm
no ni sT.
eirF.,
ehsHaraldstad,
fi tnereffid Ø.
yna&m ssorca
N.eM
A.,eNæsje,
lRuud-Hansen,
audividni fo sJ.es(1986).
ylana dEnvironmental
etagergga ,)2 hfactors
pargararegulating
pbus )2(22the
elcseaward
itrA redmigration
nu deriuqer
n
teg ot laicsilver
urc eeels
b ya(Anguilla
m setatSanguilla).
rebmeMCanadian
dna stneJournal
mges tofneFisheries
reffid ssand
orcaAquatic
seirehsfi
ofa European
n
i
l
i
a
t
e
d
e
r
o
m
n
i
d
e
s
s
u
c
s
i
d
s
i
e
u
s
s
i
s
i
Th
.
e
c
n
a
l
a
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
t
c
i
p
e
tarucca
Sciences, 43(10): 1909–1916.https://doi.org/10.1139/f86-236
.woleb 6.2 noitces
Weber, M. (1986). Fishing method and seasonal occurrence of glass eels (Anguilla
anguilla,tnL)em
inssthe
essRio
a ecMinho,
nalab yWest
ticapaCoast
c dnaofkcthe
ots Iberian
rof desuPeninsula.
sisab laciVie
hpaet
rgMilieu/
oeG 5.3.2.1
Life & Environment, Observatoire Océanologique
Laboratoire
Arago,
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimrpp.
eted243–250.
rof dna
https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-03024095
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hWeldon,
cihw rofL.,
saeO’Leary,
ra lacihpC.,
argoSteer,
eg ehtM.,
nehNewton,
W .stnemL.,
sseMacdonald,
ssa kcots yb H.
der&
evSargeant,
oc saera ehS.L.
t hctam
-(2020).
reted eA
racomparison
seitinutroppofo European
gnihsfi hceel
ihwAnguilla
rof saeranguilla
a eht meDNA
orf reffconcentrations
id dessessa era to
skcots
rfyke
etaenet
rg acatches
ot gnidin
aelfive
,gniIrish
gnelllakes.
ahc erEnvironmental
om hcum semDNA,
oceb t2:ne587–600.
meganam seirehsfi ,denim
-https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.91
roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,Westerberg,
dessessa si ecH.
na(1998).
lab yticThe
apacmigration
hcihw rofofsaglass-eel
era eht mand
orf elvers
reffid in
dethe
nimSkagerrak
reted era sand
eitinut
dthe
na Kattegatt.
yticapac teICES
efl neEcology
ewteb eofcnDiadromous
alab lautcaFishes
eht ssduring
essa otthe
elbEarly
issopm
i
y
l
r
a
e
n
s
e
m
o
ceb ti
Marine Phase, CM
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
1998N:11.
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
-Westerberg,
sim neve ro H.
ssel&gnWickström,
inaem semocH.
eb(2016).
tnemssStock
essa ecassessment
nalab yticaof
paeels
c ehtin,ethe
sac Baltic:
tsrow eht nI
sreconciling
A .decudersurvey
ro defiestimates
itnedi ebtotoachieve
n lliw yquantitative
ticapacrevo tanalysis.
aht ksir ICES
eht gnJournal
isaercnofi ,Marine
gnidael
lScience,
liw taht73:sn1:oi75–83.
siced ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv049
kat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
Zompola, S., Katselis, G., Koutsikopoulos, C. & Cladas, Y. (2008). Temporal
rpatterns
etpahC nofi glass
noigeeel
r aemigration
S citlaB eh(Anguilla
t ni stropanguilla
er ecnalL.ab1758)
yticain
parelation
c lanoitato
n fo weiver ruO
denvironmental
nah eno eht nfactors
o neewtin
ebthe
seicWestern
napercsiGreek
d lacihinland
pargoewaters.
g suoireEstuarine,
s era erehCoastal
t taht sw
ohs 2
and
-Shelf
ed erScience,
a seitinu80(3):
tropp330–338.
o gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skcots hcihw rof saera
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Annex I. The legal provisions
the Commission and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
provided.
But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
1. Agreed in December 2017 [only the text on European eel has been included]:
22
59
COUNCIL
REGULATION
(EU) 2018/120
January
fixingtowards
for 2018 the
fishing opportuniThe
Commission’s
Guidelines
doofgo23part
of 2018
the way
acknowledging
this
ties for certain
fish
stocks and
groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union
problem,
in the
following
terms:
fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
for each eel
fleet(Anguilla
segmentanguilla)
separately.
Aggregated
acrossthat
many
(9) Asimbalance
regards European
stock,
the ICESanalyses
has advised
all
57
different
fisheries
in
one
Member
State
are
not
useful.
anthropogenic mortalities should be reduced to zero, or kept as close to zero as possible. In this
the light
that advice,
is appropriate
to establish
a temporary
prohibition
While
adviceofidentifies
theitaggregation
of different
fisheries
(i.e. different
stocks
to
fish
for
European
eel
of
an
overall
length
of
12
cm
or
longer
in
Union
waters
of
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
ICES
area
including
in
the
Baltic
Sea,
to
protect
spawners
during
their
migration.
(as defined by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggregation.
Unfortunately,
this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
Article
10
currently
defined
target
more
than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
Measures on European eel
fisheries
across
differentfor
fisheries
one Member
State
may
not bevessels,
useful (although
It shallmany
be prohibited
Unionin
fishing
vessels and
third
country
as well as
required
under
Article
22(2)
subparagraph
2),
aggregated
analyses
of individual
for any commercial fisheries from shore, to fish for European eel of an overall
length
fisheries
across
different
segments
and
Member
States
may
be
crucial
to
of 12 cm or longer in Union waters of ICES area, including in the Baltic Sea,get
forana
accurate
picture
of
the
capacity
balance.
This
issue
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
consecutive three-month period to be determined by each Member State between
section
2.6 below.
1 September
2018 and 31 January 2019. Member States shall communicate the determined period to the Commission not later than 1 June 2018.
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
2. Agreed in December 2018 [only the text on European eel has been included]:
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunimatch
the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
ties for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are deterfishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters
mined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk
the geographical
areas
for the
which
fishing
oppor(10) of
Asoverfishing.
regards the Similarly,
Europeanwhen
eel (Anguilla
anguilla L.)
stock,
ICES
has advised
tunities
are determinedmortalities,
differ fromincluding
the areas recreational
for which capacity
balance is fisheries,
assessed,
that all anthropogenic
and commercial
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
should be reduced to zero, or kept as close to zero as possible. Moreover, the General
fishing
opportunities.
Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) adopted Recommendation
GFCM/42/2018/1
establishing
management
measures
for European
eel or
in even
the MedIn the worst case, the
capacity balance
assessment
becomes
meaningless
misiterranean
Sea. It isthe
appropriate
to establish awill
level
field across
the Union
leading,
increasing
risk that overcapacity
notplaying
be identified
or reduced.
As
and
hence
to
establish
also
for
the
Union
waters
of
the
ICES
area
as
well
as
bracka result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
ish waters
suchstocks
as estuaries,
coastal lagoons and transitional waters a consecutive
allow
depleted
to recover.
three- month closure period for all fisheries of European eel at all life stages. As the
Our
review
of national
capacity
reports
Baltic Sea region
in Chapter
fishing
closure
period should
be balance
consistent
with in
thethe
conservation
objectives
set out
2inshows
that
there are (EC)
serious
discrepancies
between
on the one
hand
Council
Regulation
Nogeographical
1100/2007 and
with the temporal
migration
patterns
areas
for
which
stocks
are
assessed
and
areas
for
which
fishing
opportunities
are
of European eel, for the Union waters of the ICES area it is appropriate to set itdein
termined,
on the
other hand
which capacity
the period and
between
1 August
2019 areas
and 29for
February
2020. is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
(38) Atfishing
its 42nd
annual
meeting
in 2018,
thethere
General
Fisheries no
Commission
the
those
in the
western
Baltic.
Worse,
is sometimes
distinctionfor
made
Mediterranean
GFCM/42/2018/1
establishing
between
vessels (GFCM)
fishing in adopted
the Baltic,Recommendation
those fishing in the
North Sea and those
fishing
management
in
both seas. measures for European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) in the Mediterranean Sea. These measures are already implemented at Union level through Regulation
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an ob(EC) No 1100/2007. The Recommendation also includes an annual closure period of
ligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
three consecutive months which needs to be transposed into Union law and defined
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 Howby each Member State in accordance with the conservation objectives of Regulation
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
60
fortoeel
e(EC)
ht foNo
we1100/2007,
ivrevo yroits
tcamanagement
fsitas a teg otplan(s)
elba eb
n land
liw sthe
rehtemporal
to dna nomigration
issimmoCpateht
allohmarine
sterns
i noitof
ameel
rofin
nithe
yraMember
tnemelppState.
us etaThe
uqedclosure
a fi defishall
itcerapply
eb ,reto
vew
,nac siwaters
Th .noiof
tauthe
tis
Mediterranean and to
.senbrackish
ilediuG waters
tnerrucsuch
eht ras
edestuaries,
nu deriuqcoastal
er ton silagoons
siht tuBand
.detransidivorp
tional waters, in accordance with the Recommendation.
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
Article 11
Measures
waters
n
o snoisulcon
noEuropean
c ward ot neel
oitfisheries
anibmocinniUnion
desu eb
ot dedofnethe
tni ICES
era sroarea
tacidni eTh
Any
targeted,
incidental
and
recreational
fishery
of
European
eel
shall
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnbe
alaprohibited
bmi
in Union waters of the 7ICES
area
and
brackish
waters
such
as
estuaries,
coastal
5
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffidlagoons
and transitional waters for a consecutive three-month period to be determined by each
sMember
kcots tnState
ereffidbetween
.e.i( seir1eAugust
hsfi tner2019
effidand
fo n29oiFebruary
tagergga e2020.
ht seMember
fiitnedi eStates
civda sshall
iht elcomihW
tmunicate
nemges hthe
caedetermined
fo tnemtaerperiod
t etarato
pethe
s gnCommission
irusne taht snot
eilpm
i ti than
,lufp1leJune
hnu 2019.
sa )detegrat
later
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sArticle
a stnem42ges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
thea Mediterranean
sEuropean
esylana deeel
tagin
ergg
elihw ,suTh .kcoSea
ts h(GSAs
sfi eno1nto
ah27)
t erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
1.
All
activities
by
Union
vessels
and
other
Union
fishing
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehactivities
sfi tnerecatching
ffid ynamEuropessorca
lan
aueel,
dividnamely
ni fo stargeted,
esylana dincidental
etagergga and
,)2 hrecreational
pargarapbusfisheries,
)2(22 elcshall
itrAberesubject
dnu derto
iuthe
qer
provisions
of
this
Article.
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
2. This Article shall apply to the Mediterranean Sea and to brackish waters such as
.woleb 6.2 noitces
estuaries, coastal lagoons and transitional waters.
,tnebe
msprohibited
sessa ecnalto
abfish
yticfor
apaEuropean
c dna kcoteel
s roinf dUnion
esu sisand
ab la
cihpargoeG 5waters
.3.2.1
3. It shall
international
y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o
g
n
i
h
s
fi
f
o
g
n
i
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d
r
o
f dnby
a
of the Mediterranean Sea, for a consecutive three-month period to be determined
theehconservadeach
luohMember
s denimrState.
eted erThe
a sefishing
itinutroclosure
ppo gniperiod
hsfi hcishall
hw robef sconsistent
aera tnemewith
ganam
t ,yllaedI
(EC)
htion
cihwobjectives
rof saera set
laciout
hparingoRegulation
eg eht nehW
.stnNo
ems1100/2007,
sessa kcotswith
yb denational
revoc saemanagement
ra eht hctam
-plans
retedinerplace
a seitiand
nutrwith
oppothe
gntemporal
ihsfi hcihmigration
w rof saerpatterns
a eht moof
rf European
reffid desseel
essin
a ethe
ra sMemkcots
the
rber
etaeStates
rg a otconcerned.
gnidael ,gnMember
ignellahcStates
erom shall
hcumcommunicate
semoceb tnem
egadetermined
nam seirehsperiod
fi ,denito
m
-the
ropCommission
po gnihsfi hcno
ihwlater
rof sthan
aera one
lacihmonth
pargoebefore
g eht nthe
ehwentry
,ylraliinto
miS force
.gnihsof
firthe
evo closure
fo ksir
,and
dessin
essany
a si case
ecnano
lablater
yticathan
pac h31
cihJanuary
w rof sa2019.
era eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seincluded]:
itinutroppo gnihsfi
3. Agreed in December 2019 [only the text on European eel has been
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
-COUNCIL
sim neveREGULATION
ro sselgnina(EU)
em 2020/123
semoceboftn27
emJanuary
ssessa e2020
cnalfixing
ab ytifor
cap2020
ac ehthe
t ,efishing
sac tsropportuniow eht nI
sties
A .for
deccertain
uder rfish
o destocks
fiitneand
di egroups
b ton lof
liw
ytstocks,
icapacrapplicable
evo taht in
ksUnion
ir ehtwaters
gnisaeand,
rcnifor
,gnUnion
idael
fish
lfishing
liw tahvessels,
t snoisin
icecertain
d ekatnon-Union
ot sreganwaters
am seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
(12) As regards the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) stock, ICES has advised that all
ranthropogenic
etpahC ni noigmortalities,
er aeS citlaBincluding
eht ni strrecreational
oper ecnalaband
yticcommercial
apac lanoitafisheries,
n fo weiveshould
r ru O
dbenareduced
h eno ehttonozero,
neewortebkept
seicnasapclose
ercsidtolaczero
ihparasgopossible.
eg suoiresMoreover,
era ereht tthe
aht General
swohs 2
-Fisheries
ed era seiCommission
tinutroppo gnfor
ihsfi
h
c
i
h
w
r
o
f
s
a
e
r
a
d
n
a
d
e
s
s
e
s
s
a
e
r
a
s
k
c
o
t
s
h
c
i
h
w
r
of saera
the Mediterranean (GFCM) adopted Recommendation
,GFCM/42/2018/1
elpmaxe roF .dessestablishing
essa si yticapmanagement
ac hcihw rof measures
saera dnafor
h reEuropean
hto eht noeeldnina the
,denMediimret
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o
s
i
eht
terranean. It is appropriate to maintain the level-playing field across the Unionerand
ehence
dam ntooitmaintain
cnitsid onalso
semfor
item
os Union
si erehtwaters
,esroWof.cthe
itlaBICES
nretsarea
ew eas
ht well
ni gnasihbrackish
sfi esoht
the
gwaters
nihsfi such
esohtasdnestuaries,
a aeS htrocoastal
N eht n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
e
s
o
h
t
,
c
i
t
l
a
B
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
neethreewteb
lagoons and transitional waters a consecutive
saesthe
htofishb ni
month closure period for all fisheries of European eel at all life stages. .As
-ing
bo closure
na taht period
deveilebshould
ssecorbe
p mconsistent
rofer eht nwith
i stnthe
apicconservation
itrap emos ,mobjectives
rofer 3102 set
ehtout
reftin
A
dCouncil
na esiceRegulation
rp erom a“(EC)
ni tlNo
user1100/2007
dluow tnand
emgwith
es tethe
efl ytemporal
b yticapamigration
c tneserp patterns
ot noitagof
il
85
European
eel,
for
the
Union
waters
of
the
ICES
area
it
is
appropriate
to
set
it
in
the
-woH .” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
between
2021.
rperiod
ebmeM
eriuqer1tAugust
on od se2020
niledand
iuG 28
s’noFebruary
issimmoC
naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Article
11
the
Commission
and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
Measures on
eel fisheries
in Union
waters ofsupplementary
the ICES areainformation is
situation.
ThisEuropean
can, however,
be rectified
if adequate
Any targeted,
incidental
and recreational
fishery
of European
eel shall be prohibited
provided.
But this
is not required
under the
current
Guidelines.
in Union waters of the ICES area and brackish waters such as estuaries, coastal lagoons
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
and transitional waters for a consecutive three-month period to be determined by each
problem, in the following terms:
Member State concerned between 1 August 2020 and 28 February 2021. Member States
The indicators
intended period
to be used
in Commission
combinationno
tolater
drawthan
conclusions
on
shall communicate
theare
determined
to the
1 June 2020.
imbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
22
61
In 2019, the provision for the Mediterranean Member States was transposed
insteadthis
intoadvice
[only text
specifically
on Europeanof
eel
has beenfisheries
included]:
While
identifies
the aggregation
different
(i.e. different stocks
targeted)
as unhelpful,
it 2019/2236
implies that
separate
treatment
segment
COUNCIL REGULATION
(EU)
of 16ensuring
December
2019 fixing
for 2020 of
theeach
fishing
oppor(as
defined
by
vessel
length
and
main
gear
type)
is
sufficient
to
avoid
such
aggregatunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and
tion.
Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
Black Seas
currently defined target more than one fish stock. Thus, while aggregated analyses
(6) At many
its 42nd
annual fisheries
meeting in
in one
2018,Member
the General
for the
across
different
StateFisheries
may notCommission
be useful (although
Mediterranean
(GFCM)
adopted
recommendation
GFCM/42/2018/1
on
a
multiannurequired under Article 22(2) subparagraph 2), aggregated analyses of individual
al management
for European
in Member
the Mediterranean
fisheries
across plan
different
segmentseel
and
States maySea,
be which
crucialestablished
to get an
management
measures
for
European
eel
(Anguilla
anguilla)
in
the
Mediterranean
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detailSea
in
(GFCM
geographical
subareas
1
to
27).
Those
measures
include
an
annual
closure
pesection 2.6 below.
riod of three consecutive months to be defined by each Member State in accordance
with theGeographical
conservation objectives
Council
Regulation
(EC)
No 1100/2007,
the nation1.2.3.5
basis usedoffor
stock and
capacity
balance
assessment,
al
management
plan(s)
for
eel
and
the
temporal
migration
patterns
of
eel
in
the Memand for determining of fishing opportunity
ber State. The closure shall apply to all marine waters of the Mediterranean Sea and
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
to brackish waters such as estuaries, coastal lagoons and transitional waters, in accordmatch the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
ance with that recommendation. That measure should be implemented in Union law.
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined,
management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
Article fisheries
2
risk
of
overfishing.
Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opporScope
tunities
are determined
differ
thefishing
areas for
whichexploiting
capacity balance
is assessed,
1. This Regulation
applies
to from
Union
vessels
the following
fish
it
becomes
nearly
impossible
to
assess
the
actual
balance
between
fleet
capacity
and
stocks: (a) European eel (Anguilla anguilla) in the Mediterranean Sea, as defined in
fishing
Article opportunities.
4(b);
In
the worst
Article
4 case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading,
increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
Fishing zones
a(b)result,
it becomes Sea’
more
difficult
for fisheries
managers
to take subareas
decisions1that
‘Mediterranean
means
the waters
in GFCM
geographical
to 27,will
as
allow
depleted
stocks
to
recover.
defined in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011;
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
Article 5
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
European eel
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are de1. All activities by Union fishing vessels and other Union fishing activities catching
termined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
European eel (Anguilla anguilla), namely targeted, incidental and recreational fisherthere is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
ies, shall be subject to the provisions of this Article.
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between
vesselsapplies
fishingtointhe
theMediterranean
Baltic, those fishing
in the
North Sea
and those
2. This Article
Sea and
to brackish
waters
such asfishing
estuin
both
seas. lagoons and transitional waters.
aries,
coastal
After
the be
2013prohibited
reform, some
participants
the reform
believedeel
that
ob3. It shall
for Union
fishinginvessels
to fishprocess
for European
in an
Union
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
and
and international waters of the Mediterranean Sea for a consecutive three-month
58
detailed
of the fishing
capacity
situation
a given
fishperiod
stock”.shall
Howperiod topicture
be determined
by each
Member
State.affecting
The fishing
closure
be
ever,
as
noted
above,
the
European
Commission’s
Guidelines
do
not
require
Member
consistent with the conservation objectives set out in Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007,
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
62
ewith
ht fonational
weivrevmanagement
o yrotcafsitasplans
a teginoplace
t elbaand
eb with
ton llthe
iw temporal
srehto dnmigration
a noissimmpatterns
oC eht
sofi nEuropean
oitamrofneel
i yin
ratthe
nemMember
elppus eStates
tauqedconcerned.
a fi defiitceMember
r eb ,revStates
ewoh ,shall
nac scommunicate
iTh .noitautis
the determined period
Commission
.sento
ilethe
diuG
tnerruc ehtno
redlater
nu dthan
eriuqone
er tomonth
n si sihprior
t tuB to
.dethe
divoenrp
try into force of the closure and in any case no later than 31 January 2020.
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
4. Agreed in December 2020 [only text specifically on European eel has been included]:
n
o snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
yCOUNCIL
nam ssoREGULATION
rca sesylana(EU)
deta2021/92
gerggAof.y28leJanuary
tarapes2021
tnemfixing
ges tfor
eefl2021
hcathe
e rofishing
f ecnaopportunities
labmi
75 groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union
for certain fish stocks and
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
t(12)
nemAs
gesregards
hcae fothe
tneEuropean
mtaert eteel
arap(Anguilla
es gnirusanguilla)
ne taht sestock,
ilpmi ICES
ti ,lufphas
lehadvised
nu sa )dthat
etegrall
at
-anthropogenic
agergga hcus dmortalities,
iova ot tneicincluding
ffius si )epthose
yt radue
eg nto
iamrecreational
dna htgneland
lessecommercial
v yb denfiedfishsa(
series,
a stneshould
mges tbe
eeflreduced
eht fo ytonazero,
m sa or
hcukept
msaas
ni close
,gnidato
elszero
im siassipossible.
ht ,yletanMoreover,
utrofnU .nthe
oit
sGeneral
esylana Fisheries
detagerggCommission
a elihw ,suThfor.kthe
cotsMediterranean
hsfi eno naht e(GFCM)
rom tegradopted
at denfieRecommend yltnerruc
hdation
guohtlGFCM/42/2018/1
a( lufesu eb ton yestablishing
am etatS rebmanagement
meM eno nimeasures
seirehsfifor
tneEuropean
reffid ynaeel
m sin
sothe
rca
lMediterranean.
audividni fo seItsyislan
a detagerggtoa maintain
,)2 hpargthe
araplevel-playing
bus )2(22 elcfield
itrAacross
rednuthe
deUnion
riuqer
appropriate
n
a tehence
g ot lto
aicmaintain
urc eb yaalso
m sefor
tatSthe
reUnion
bmeM waters
dna stnofem
geICES
s tnerarea
effidassswell
orca asseibrackrehsfi
and
the
n
i liwaters
ated ersuch
om nas
i destuaries,
essucsid scoastal
i eussi slagoons
iTh .ecnand
alabtransitional
yticapac ehtwaters
fo eruatcconsecutive
ip etarucca
ish
.wolstages.
eb 6.2 nAs
oitthe
ces
three-month closure period for all fisheries of European eel at all life
fishing closure period should be consistent with the conservation objectives set out
in Council
the
,tnemRegulation
ssessa ecn(EC)
alab yNo
tica1100/2007
pac dna kand
cotswith
rof d
esutemporal
sisab lacmigration
ihpargoeGpatterns
5.3.2.1
inuICES
troppo
gniit
hsis
fi fappropriate
o gninimretetod set
rof it
dnin
a
of European eel, for the Union waters ofytthe
area
dthe
luoperiod
hs denibetween
mreted e1raAugust
seitinu2021
troppand
o gn28
ihFebruary
sfi hcihw r2022.
of saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
Article 12
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
Measures on European eel fisheries in Union waters of the ICES area
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
Any targeted, incidental and recreational fishery of European eel shall be prohibited
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
in Union waters of the ICES area and brackish waters such as estuaries, coastal lagoons
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
and transitional waters for a consecutive three-month period to be determined by each
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
Member State concerned between 1 August 2021 and 28 February 2022. Member States
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
shall communicate the determined period to the Commission no later than 1 June 2021.
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2021/90 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revoceCommission
r ot skcots defor
telpthe
edMediwolla
(7) At its 42nd annual meeting in 2018, the General Fisheries
rterranean
etpahC n(GFCM)
i noiger aadopted
eS citlaBRecommendation
eht ni stroper ecGFCM/42/2018/1
nalab yticapac laon
noaitmultiannual
an fo weivermanru O
agement
plan
for
European
eel
in
the
Mediterranean
Sea,
which
established
management
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era ereht taht swohs 2
anguilla)
-measures
ed era sefor
itinEuropean
utroppo geel
nih(Anguilla
sfi hcihw
rof saein
rathe
dnaMediterranean
dessessa era sSea
kco(GFCM
ts hcihwgeographrof saera
ical
subareas
1
to
27).
Those
measures
include
catch
or
effort
limits
and
an
annual
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah rehto eht no dna ,denclosure
imret
period
d
na citof
laBthree
nretconsecutive
sae eht ni gnmonths
ihsfi sletossebe
v ndefined
eewtebby
edeach
am nMember
oitcnitsiState
d on nineftaccordance
o si ereht
ewith
damthe
noiconservation
tcnitsid on sobjectives
emitemosofsi Council
ereht ,esRegulation
roW .citlaB(EC)
nretNo
sew1100/2007,
eht ni gnthe
ihsfinationesoht
al
management
plan
or
plans
for
eel
and
the
temporal
migration
patterns
of
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slesseveel
neeinwtthe
eb
Member State. Where national management plans resulting in effort or catch
reductions
.saes htob ni
of at least 30 % have been in place before the entry into force of that Recommendation,
-the
bo catch
na tahor
t dfishing
eveileb effort
ssecorlimits
p mroalready
fer eht nestablished
i stnapicitrand
ap eimplemented
mos ,mrofer 3should
102 ehtnot
reftbe
A
dexceeded.
na esicerThe
p erclosure
om a“ should
ni tlusapply
er dluto
owalltnmarine
emges waters
teefl yof
b the
yticMediterranean
apac tneserp oSea
t noand
itagto
il
85
kcots hsuch
sfi neasviestuaries,
g a gnitcecoastal
ffa noitlagoons
autis ytand
icaptransitional
ac gnihsfi ehwaters,
t fo eruintcaccordance
ip deliated
-brackish
woH .”waters
rwith
ebmthat
eM eRecommendation.
riuqer ton od seniThose
lediuGmeasures
s’noissimshould
moC nbeaeimplemented
poruE eht ,evin
obUnion
a detonlaw.
sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
Article
2
the
Commission
and others will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
Scope
situation.
This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
1. This Regulation
to Union
vesselsGuidelines.
exploiting the following fish
provided.
But this isapplies
not required
underfishing
the current
stocks: (a) European eel (Anguilla anguilla), red coral (Corallium rubrum) and common
The Commission’s Guidelines do go part of the way towards acknowledging this
dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) in the Mediterranean Sea, as defined in point (b)
problem, in the following terms:
of Article 4;
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
Articleimbalance
4
for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
Fishingdifferent
zones fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
(b) ‘Mediterranean Sea’ means the waters in GFCM geographical subareas 1 to 27, as
While
advice identifies
the aggregation
of different fisheries (i.e. different stocks
definedthis
in Annex
I to Regulation
(EU) No 1343/2011;
targeted) as unhelpful, it implies that ensuring separate treatment of each segment
Article
5 by vessel length and main gear type) is sufficient to avoid such aggrega(as
defined
European
eel
tion. Unfortunately,
this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
1. This Article
applies
to all
activities
by Union
fishing
vessels
and
other Union
fishcurrently
defined
target
more
than one
fish stock.
Thus,
while
aggregated
analyses
ing
activities
catching
European
eel
(Anguilla
anguilla),
namely
targeted,
incidental
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
and recreational
fisheries,22(2)
in allsubparagraph
marine waters2),ofaggregated
the Mediterranean
including
required
under Article
analyses Sea,
of individual
freshwaters
and
transitional
brackish
waters,
such
as
lagoons
and
estuaries.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
2. It shall be prohibited for Union fishing vessels to fish for European eel in Union
section 2.6 below.
and international waters of the Mediterranean Sea for a consecutive three-month
period to be determined by each Member State. The fishing closure period shall be
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
consistent with the conservation objectives set out in Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
with national management plans and with the temporal migration patterns of EuIdeally,
management
areas
for which
fishing
opportunities
are determined
should
ropean the
eel in
the Member
States
concerned.
Member
States shall
communicate
the
match
areas covered
byCommission
stock assessments.
When
geographical
areas
period the
determined
to the
no later
thanthe
one
month prior
to for
thewhich
entry
stocks
are of
assessed
differand
from
the case
areasno
forlater
which
opportunities
are deterinto force
the closure
in any
thanfishing
31 January
2021.
mined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
3. Member
States shall
not exceed
levelareas
of catches
or fishing
of
risk
of overfishing.
Similarly,
whenthe
themaximum
geographical
for which
fishingeffort
opporEuropean
establisheddiffer
and implemented
byfor
means
of capacity
their national
management
tunities
areeeldetermined
from the areas
which
balance
is assessed,
plans,
adopted
in accordance
with
Articles
2 andbalance
4 of Regulation
it
becomes
nearly
impossible to
assess
the actual
between1100/2007.
fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
22
63
These
thecase,
articles
in Council
Regulation
2021/90 meaningless
from the so called
EelmisIn
theare
worst
thereferred
capacitytobalance
assessment
becomes
or even
Regulation
2007/1100:
leading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
aCOUNCIL
result, it
becomes more
difficult
foroffisheries
managers
to take decisions
that
REGULATION
(EC) No
1100/2007
18 September
2007 establishing
measures
forwill
the
recovery
of the stock
of European
eel
allow
depleted
stocks
to recover.
Our
review
Article
2 of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2Establishment
shows that there
areManagement
serious geographical
of Eel
Plans discrepancies between on the one hand
areas
for
which
stocks
are
assessed
and
areasthe
forindividual
which fishing
de1. Member States shall identify and define
riveropportunities
basins lying are
within
termined,
andterritory
on the other
hand areasnatural
for which
capacity
is assessed.
For
their national
that constitute
habitats
for the
European
eelexample,
(eel rivthere
is
often
no
distinction
made
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
eastern
and
er basins) which may include maritime waters. If appropriate justificationBaltic
is providthose
fishing inState
the may
western
Baltic.the
Worse,
there
is national
sometimes
no distinction
made
ed, a Member
designate
whole
of its
territory
or an existing
between
vessels
fishing
in
the
Baltic,
those
fishing
in
the
North
Sea
and
those
fishing
regional administrative unit as one eel river basin.
in both seas.
2. In defining eel river basins, Member States shall have the maximum possible regard
After
2013 reform,arrangements
some participants
in the
believed2000/60/EC.
that an obfor thethe
administrative
referred
to inreform
Articleprocess
3 of Directive
ligation
to
present
capacity
by
fleet
segment
would
result
in
“a
more
precise
3. For each eel river basin defined under paragraph 1, Member States shall prepareand
an
58
detailed
picture
of
the
fishing
capacity
situation
affecting
a
given
fish
stock”.
HowEel Management Plan.
ever, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
64
e4.hThe
t fo objective
weivrevo ofyreach
otcafEel
sitasManagement
a teg ot elbPlan
a eb shall
ton lbe
liwtosrreduce
ehto dnanthropogenic
a noissimmoCmoreht
with
at .least
stalities
i noitaso
mras
ofto
ni permit
yratnem
elpphigh
us etprobability
auqeda fi dthe
efiitescapement
cer eb ,reveto
wothe
h ,nsea
ac sofiTh
noita40
uti%s
of the silver eel biomass
.senirelative
lediuG tto
nerthe
rucbest
eht estimate
rednu derofiuescapement
qer ton si sihthat
t tuBwould
.dedivhave
orp
existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock. The Eel Management
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
Plan shall be prepared with the purpose of achieving this objective in the long term.
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
5. The target level of escapement shall be determined, taking into account the data
n
o snoisufor
lcnoeach
c waeel
rd oriver
t noibasin,
tanibminocone
ni dor
esumore
eb oof
t dthe
ednfollowing
etni era srothree
tacidways:
ni eTh
available
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
(a) use of data collected75 in the most appropriate period prior to 1980, provided these
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
are available in sufficient quantity and quality;
s(b)
kcohabitat-based
ts tnereffid .e.assessment
i( seirehsfi tof
nerpotential
effid fo noeel
itaproduction,
gergga eht sein
fiitthe
nedabsence
i ecivda sofihanthrot elihW
tpogenic
nemges mortality
hcae fo tnfactors;
emtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
(c) with reference to the ecology and hydrography of similar river systems.
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
shall
andtean
s6.esEach
ylanaEel
detManagement
agergga elihwPlan
,suTh
.kccontain
ots hsfi aendescription
o naht erom
graanalysis
t denfiedofythe
ltnepresr ru c
ent
situation
of
the
eel
population
in
the
eel
river
basin
and
relate
it
to
the
target
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
llevel
audivofidescapement
ni fo sesylalaid
na ddown
etagerin
ggparagraph
a ,)2 hparg4.arapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
7.aEach
n
teg oEel
t laManagement
icurc eb yamPlan
setatshall
S rebinclude
meM dmeasures
na stnemto
gesattain,
tnereffmonitor
id ssorcaand
seirverify
ehsfi
the
n
i liobjective
ated eromsetniout
desin
sucparagraph
sid si euss4.i sThe
iTh Member
.ecnalab States
yticapamay
c ehtdefine
fo eruthe
tcipmeans
etarudecca
pending on local and regional conditions.
.woleb 6.2 noitces
8. An Eel Management Plan may contain, but is not limited to, the following measures:
,tnemcommercial
ssessa ecnalfishing
ab yticaactivity,
pac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
— reducing
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
— restricting recreational fishing,
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
— restocking measures,
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-—
retstructural
ed era seitmeasures
inutroppotogmake
nihsfi rivers
hcihwpassable
rof saeraand
ehtimprove
morf reriver
ffid dhabitats,
essessa ertogether
a skcots
with
other
environmental
measures,
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-—
roptransportation
po gnihsfi hcihofw silver
rof saeeel
ra lfrom
acihpinland
argoeg waters
eht nehto
w ,waters
ylralimifrom
S .gniwhich
hsfirevthey
o fo kcan
sir
,escape
dessessfreely
a si ecto
nalthe
ab ySargasso
ticapac hSea,
cihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
d—nacombating
yticapac tpredators,
eefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
— temporary switching-off of hydro-electric power turbines, .seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-—sim
neve ro related
sselgninto
aeaquaculture.
m semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
measures
s9.AEach
.decuEel
derManagement
ro defiitnediPlan
eb tshall
on llcontain
iw yticapa atime
crevoschedule
taht ksifor
r ehthe
t gnattainment
isaercni ,gnofidthe
ael
ltarget
liw tahlevel
t snoofisiescapement
ced ekat ot slaid
regadown
nam seinireparagraph
hsfi rof tlu4,cffi
id erom saegradual
moceb tiapproach
,tluser a
following
.
r
e
v
o
c
e
r
o
t
s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
t
e
l
p
e
d wwill
olla
and depending on an expected recruitment level; it shall include measures that
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
rbe
etpapplied
ahC nias
noof
igethe
r aefirst
S cityear
laB eof
htapplication
ni stroper eof
cnthe
alabEel
ytiManagement
capac lanoitanPlan.
fo weiver ruO
d10.
naIn
h ethe
no eEel
ht nManagement
o neewteb sePlan,
icnapeeach
rcsidMember
lacihpargState
oeg sushall
oiresimplement
era ereht tappropriate
aht swohs 2
-measures
ed era seias
tinsoon
utropas
popossible
gnihsfi hto
cihreduce
w rof sthe
aeraeel
dnamortality
dessessa caused
era skcoby
ts hfactors
cihw rooutside
f saera
,the
elpm
axe roFincluding
.dessessahydroelectric
si yticapac hcturbines,
ihw rof sapumps
era dnaorh predators,
rehto eht nunless
o dna this
,denis
imnot
ret
fishery,
d
n
a
c
i
t
l
a
B
n
r
e
t
s
a
e
e
h
t
n
i
g
n
i
h
s
fi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
d
a
m
n
o
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
o
n
n
e
ft
o
s
i
e
r
e
ht
necessary to attain the objective of the plan.
e11.daEach
m noEel
itcnManagement
itsid on semiPlan
temoshall
s si einclude
reht ,esraodescription
W .citlaB nrofetthe
sewcontrol
eht ni gand
nihsenforcefi esoht
gment
nihsfimeasures
esoht dnwhich
a aeS hwill
troNapply
eht nin
i gwaters
nihsfi eother
soht ,cthan
itlaBCommunity
eht ni gnihsfi
s
l
e
s
s
e
v
n
eewteb
waters in accord.saes htob ni
ance with Article 10.
-12.
boAn
na Eel
tahManagement
t deveileb ssecPlan
orp m
rofeconstitute
r eht ni stanamanagement
picitrap emoplan
s ,mradopted
ofer 3102atehnational
t reft A
shall
dlevel
na ewithin
sicerp ethe
romframework
a“ ni tluserofdaluCommunity
ow tnemges conservation
teefl yb yticapmeasure
ac tneseas
rp referred
ot noitagto
il
85
ots hsfi of
nevCouncil
ig a gnitRegulation
ceffa noitau(EC)
tis ytNo
icap1198/2006
ac gnihsfi eofht27foJuly
erut2006
cip deon
liatthe
ed
-inwoArticle
H .” kc24(1)(v)
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85
European
Fisheries
Fund
(1). will not be able to get a satisfactory overview of the
the
Commission
and
others
situation. This can, however, be rectified if adequate supplementary information is
Article 4 But this is not required under the current Guidelines.
provided.
Communication of Eel Management Plans
The
Commission’s
Guidelines
do gotopart
the way towards
acknowledging
this
1. Member
States shall
communicate
the of
Commission
not later
than 31 December
problem,
in
the
following
terms:
2008 Eel Management Plans prepared in accordance with Article 2.
The indicators are intended to be used in combination to draw conclusions on
2. A Member State which has not submitted an Eel Management Plan to the Comimbalance for each fleet segment separately. Aggregated analyses across many
mission for approval by 31 December 2008 shall either reduce
fishing effort by at
different fisheries in one Member State are not useful.57
least 50 % relative to the average effort deployed from 2004 to 2006 or reduce fishing
While
this
advice
identifies in
theeel
aggregation
(i.e.the
different
effort to
ensure
a reduction
catches byof
at different
least 50 %fisheries
relative to
averagestocks
catch
targeted)
it implies
that ensuring
separate
from 2004astounhelpful,
2006, either
by shortening
the fishing
seasontreatment
for eel or of
byeach
othersegment
means.
(as
by vessel
length
and mainfrom
gear 1type)
is sufficient
Thisdefined
reduction
shall be
implemented
January
2009. to avoid such aggregation. Unfortunately, this is misleading, inasmuch as many of the fleet segments as
3. The reduction
catches
setthan
out in
substituted
in whole
or
currently
definedintarget
more
oneparagraph
fish stock.2 may
Thus,bewhile
aggregated
analyses
in
part
by
immediate
measures
concerning
other
anthropogenic
mortality
factors,
across many different fisheries in one Member State may not be useful (although
which willunder
allow Article
a number
of migrating
silver2),eels
equivalentanalyses
to that which
the rerequired
22(2)
subparagraph
aggregated
of individual
duction
of
catches
would
allow
to
escape
to
the
sea
to
spawn.
fisheries across different segments and Member States may be crucial to get an
accurate picture of the capacity balance. This issue is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 below.
22
65
1.2.3.5 Geographical basis used for stock and capacity balance assessment,
and for determining of fishing opportunity
Ideally, the management areas for which fishing opportunities are determined should
match the areas covered by stock assessments. When the geographical areas for which
stocks are assessed differ from the areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, fisheries management becomes much more challenging, leading to a greater
risk of overfishing. Similarly, when the geographical areas for which fishing opportunities are determined differ from the areas for which capacity balance is assessed,
it becomes nearly impossible to assess the actual balance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities.
In the worst case, the capacity balance assessment becomes meaningless or even misleading, increasing the risk that overcapacity will not be identified or reduced. As
a result, it becomes more difficult for fisheries managers to take decisions that will
allow depleted stocks to recover.
Our review of national capacity balance reports in the Baltic Sea region in Chapter
2 shows that there are serious geographical discrepancies between on the one hand
areas for which stocks are assessed and areas for which fishing opportunities are determined, and on the other hand areas for which capacity is assessed. For example,
there is often no distinction made between vessels fishing in the eastern Baltic and
those fishing in the western Baltic. Worse, there is sometimes no distinction made
between vessels fishing in the Baltic, those fishing in the North Sea and those fishing
in both seas.
After the 2013 reform, some participants in the reform process believed that an obligation to present capacity by fleet segment would result in “a more precise and
detailed picture of the fishing capacity situation affecting a given fish stock”.58 However, as noted above, the European Commission’s Guidelines do not require Member
57
Guidelines, p. 4
58
ClientEarth p. 6
»Too
»Annual
many
threevessels
month
chase
eel
too
few
fishing
closures«
fish«
22
66
eht fo weivrevo yrotcafsitas a teg ot elba eb ton lliw srehto dna noissimmoC eht
si noitamrofni yratnemelppus etauqeda fi defiitcer eb ,revewoh ,nac siTh .noitautis
.senilediuG tnerruc eht rednu deriuqer ton si siht tuB .dedivorp
siht gnigdelwonkca sdrawot yaw eht fo trap og od senilediuG s’noissimmoC eTh
:smret gniwollof eht ni ,melborp
no snoisulcnoc ward ot noitanibmoc ni desu eb ot dednetni era srotacidni eTh
ynam ssorca sesylana detagerggA .yletarapes tnemges teefl hcae rof ecnalabmi
75
.lufesu ton era etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid
skcots tnereffid .e.i( seirehsfi tnereffid fo noitagergga eht sefiitnedi ecivda siht elihW
tnemges hcae fo tnemtaert etarapes gnirusne taht seilpmi ti ,lufplehnu sa )detegrat
-agergga hcus diova ot tneicffius si )epyt raeg niam dna htgnel lessev yb denfied sa(
sa stnemges teefl eht fo ynam sa hcumsani ,gnidaelsim si siht ,yletanutrofnU .noit
sesylana detagergga elihw ,suTh .kcots hsfi eno naht erom tegrat denfied yltnerruc
hguohtla( lufesu eb ton yam etatS rebmeM eno ni seirehsfi tnereffid ynam ssorca
laudividni fo sesylana detagergga ,)2 hpargarapbus )2(22 elcitrA rednu deriuqer
na teg ot laicurc eb yam setatS rebmeM dna stnemges tnereffid ssorca seirehsfi
ni liated erom ni dessucsid si eussi siTh .ecnalab yticapac eht fo erutcip etarucca
.woleb 6.2 noitces
,tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac dna kcots rof desu sisab lacihpargoeG 5.3.2.1
ytinutroppo gnihsfi fo gninimreted rof dna
dluohs denimreted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera tnemeganam eht ,yllaedI
hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehW .stnemssessa kcots yb derevoc saera eht hctam
-reted era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid dessessa era skcots
retaerg a ot gnidael ,gnignellahc erom hcum semoceb tnemeganam seirehsfi ,denim
-roppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera lacihpargoeg eht nehw ,ylralimiS .gnihsfirevo fo ksir
,dessessa si ecnalab yticapac hcihw rof saera eht morf reffid denimreted era seitinut
dna yticapac teefl neewteb ecnalab lautca eht ssessa ot elbissopmi ylraen semoceb ti
.seitinutroppo gnihsfi
-sim neve ro sselgninaem semoceb tnemssessa ecnalab yticapac eht ,esac tsrow eht nI
sA .decuder ro defiitnedi eb ton lliw yticapacrevo taht ksir eht gnisaercni ,gnidael
lliw taht snoisiced ekat ot sreganam seirehsfi rof tlucffiid erom semoceb ti ,tluser a
.revocer ot skcots detelped wolla
to
ooT»
»Annual
ythreenam
smonth
lessev
eseel
ahc
wfishing
ef oot
closures«
«hsfi
retpahC ni noiger aeS citlaB eht ni stroper ecnalab yticapac lanoitan fo wcek iPvhoer ruO
to
dnah eno eht no neewteb seicnapercsid lacihpargoeg suoires era erehlatmytSaht swohs 2
A
/
-ed era seitinutroppo gnihsfi hcihw rof saera dna dessessa era skVicsioontss hcihw rof saera
l
a
r
,elpmaxe roF .dessessa si yticapac hcihw rof saera dnah r©eNhattuo eht no dna ,denimret
dna citlaB nretsae eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb edam noitcnitsid on nefto si ereht
edam noitcnitsid on semitemos si ereht ,esroW .citlaB nretsew eht ni gnihsfi esoht
gnihsfi esoht dna aeS htroN eht ni gnihsfi esoht ,citlaB eht ni gnihsfi slessev neewteb
.saes htob ni
© Ja
nW
loda
y
rcz
k
c
Sto
my
/ Ala
to
ho
kP
-bo na taht deveileb ssecorp mrofer eht ni stnapicitrap emos ,mrofer 3102 eht reft A
dna esicerp erom a“ ni tluser dluow tnemges teefl yb yticapac tneserp ot noitagil
-woH 85.” kcots hsfi nevig a gnitceffa noitautis yticapac gnihsfi eht fo erutcip deliated
rebmeM eriuqer ton od senilediuG s’noissimmoC naeporuE eht ,evoba deton sa ,reve
4 .p ,senilediuG
75
6 .p htraEtneilC
85