European Commission released its assessment of Member States plans and measures to protect the European eel. The assessments concludes that the quality of reports from EU member states is too vague for any proper evaluation to be made, pointing to that additional measures may need to be considered.
In the past 30 years there has been a dramatic decline in the European eel population, leading to that IUCN in 2008 added the eel to its list of critically endangered species. Today, the number of eel larvae returning to the coasts of Europe is merely 2–10 per cent of the levels seen in the 1970s. According to the latest ICES advice released in November 2013, the status of the eel stock remains critical and urgent action is needed. The European Eel Management Plan (EMP) was proposed by the European Commission in October 2005 and came into force 2007.
The EMPs fall under the Eel regulation (Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1100/2007) which obliges Member States with river basins within their national territory that constitutes habitats for eels to establish and implement EMPs. The EMPs consists of a number of management measures to ensure that at least 40 per cent of adult ells can escape and return to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce. Measures of the EMPs includes reducing commercial fishing activities, restricting recreational fishing, restocking measures and measures related to hydro-electric power turbines to name a few. The EMP furthermore says that Member States that permit fishing of eels less than 12 cm in length (also referred to as glass eels) have an obligation to reserve 60 % of their glass eel catches for restocking purposes.
The assessment released by the commission yesterday is the first status report since the adoption of the national EMPs. The assessment shows that according to the Member States progress reports, only 17 Eel Management Units (EMUs) out if 81 EMUs are achieving their biomass targets. One had hoped that the Commission would propose a number of improvements to the existing EMPs, especially in light of the low number of Member States achieving the biomass target, but have instead left it up to Member States to move forward giving a somewhat vague message of which direction they would like to see EMP to develop; “In line with this scientific advice, additional measures may need to be considered to reduce current levels of humanly induced mortality”.
The Eel Management Plan progress report submitted by the Member States to the European Commission where so vague that the commission where not able to make proper evaluation. Showing that the national management plans laid out under the EU framework are insufficient, and as such we call for more forceful and coordinated actions.