Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2005)472 - Measures for the recovery of the stock of European Eel - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2005)472 - Measures for the recovery of the stock of European Eel. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2005)472  |
| date | 06-10-2005 |
The objective of the proposal is to achieve a recovery of the stock of European eel to previous historic levels of adult abundance and the recruitment of glass eel.
European eel are widely distributed throughout European estuarine and inland waters. In their adult phase eel spawn in the western central Atlantic Ocean, with the larval eel recruiting to European estuaries. Management of the European eel stock is a Community-wide issue because the fish form a single stock that is distributed across the European continent.
Scientific advice indicates that the eel stock is highly depleted.
Many Member States have adopted a wide range of measures concerning eel management such as minimum landing sizes, closed seasons and areas, licensing of eel fishermen, regulations concerning construction of dams and eel passes. The EU Habitats Directive was established in 1992 and the Water Framework Directive was established in 2000, inter alia , to protect, conserve and enhance the environment where the eel spends the largest part of its life cycle.
Due to the variety of habitats and fisheries affecting the eel populations in different river basins, eel cannot be managed exclusively using standard management instruments in all areas. Therefore the proposed Regulation identifies a specific target for the management of eel populations. Each Member State should apply locally-appropriate management measures to reach this target. The adoption of a common target for all Member States is necessary in order that measures to restore eel populations are equitable. This proposed Regulation also establishes an obligation for Member States to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate means to reach these targets. A review of experience so gained will be made.
A Community approach is needed in order that Member States can each implement a balanced and equitable contribution to eel management. It is not clear that the existing national measures are either adequate or equitable.
The coordination and consistency between measures taken under this proposal and those taken under the mentioned Directives becomes of utmost importance, because restoration of a healthy eel population is an indicator of river continuity and water quality under the Water Framework Directive.
Contents
- RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
- 1.1 Objectives
- 1.2 Historical elements
- 1.3 Existing provisions
- 1.4 Differences with existing provisions
- 1.5 Consistency with other policies
- 2.2. Collection and the use of expertise
- 2.3 Impact assessment
- 3. LEGAL ELEMENTS
- 3.1. Eel Management Plans
- 3.2 Short-term measures
- 3.3. Derogations from short-term measures
- 3.4. Subsidiarity and proportionality
- 5. ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS
Consultations
The Commission organised a Regional Workshop on eel management in March 2003 at which scientific advice concerning eel management was presented and was discussed among scientists, the eel fishing sector and Member States. The Commission prepared a Communication entitled "Development of a Community Action Plan for the management of European Eel (COM(2003) 573 final) in 1st October 2003. This document was debated by Council, whose conclusions were adopted in July 2004. Based on these conclusions, the Commission organised a second workshop on 17th. September 2004 in order to discuss specific targets and immediate measures for eel management.
The Commission, scientific advisors, industry sectors and Member States could agree that the eel stock is at a very depleted level, that measures need to be taken to achieve this, and that the Commission should come forward with specific proposals covering recovery measures on both environmental and fisheries aspects. All sectors agreed that the approach of setting a management target at Community level while leaving Member States the freedom to decide the means to reach the target is a good one.
However, some industry sectors focused on the problem of market supply of glass eels and requested a ban the export of these eels and state aids for restocking. The Commission will look into possible market measures but notes that World Trade Organisation rules require inter alia that market measures imposed to deliver a conservation benefit should affect the various sectors involved in an equitable manner. The Commission will address possibilities for aid for restocking in the context of the new European Fisheries Fund.
The Commission has obtained scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee. This advice indicates that urgent management action is required to restore the stock. Recent recruitments of eel have been as low as 1% of historic levels, and adult eel that are migrating to the sea to spawn suffer high mortality rates. It is necessary to protect this resource in order that the river basins of Member States are populated with adequate numbers of recruiting eel, and that adequate numbers of eel survive to spawning time.
The eel fisheries sector is highly diversified across Europe. The main sectors are the glass eel fisheries in France, the UK and Spain, the on-growing of eel in European aquaculture. Statistics concerning eel fishing are incomplete at a European level. FAO data indicate average catches of wild fish in the 1990s of around 15 000 tonnes/ year and aquaculture production of around 18 000t/year, with a sale value around € 150 Million. In addition, glass eel catches of around 500 - 800 tonnes (with a very high value) were taken in the 1980s but are currently at a much lower level. The latest recorded size of the European eel fishing sector numbered about 25 000 fishermen. In some areas, especially in estuarine fisheries in France where consultations with the sector indicate that there are around 1100 fishing vessels catching eels in the estuaries and a further 450 fishermen working in the rivers, fishing for glass eel represented about 75% of the turnover of the fishermen in that area.
If no action is taken to improve the survival of adult silver eel, the current very low abundances of glass eel will result in a decline in the abundances of yellow eel in rivers, and at the end of the five to ten year growing phase the abundance of emigrating silver eel will also decline. If the decline in the adult populations reflects the decline in the glass eel recruitment this would mean that eel abundances would decrease one-hundred fold. If, in addition, the recruitment of glass eel reduces when the escapement of silver eel also reduces, this effectively means the eel stock will no longer exist as a significant exploitable resource after ten years, and the associated jobs and markets will be lost. These effects are in addition to the immediate problems of low supply and high price caused by the scarcity of glass eels, and also in addition to the effects experienced in recreational fisheries.
Under the proposal, the choice of conservation measures to ensure eel survival remains with Member States. Measures such as a reduction in yellow eel fishing in the summer, a reduction in silver eel fishing during the autumn downstream migrations, increases in restocking, improvements in water quality, modifications to dams and turbines to allow improved eel migrations, reduction in recreational fisheries and assisted migrations are all measures that could form part of eel management plans. Different choices among these measures would have different social and economic consequences which cannot be evaluated in a global fashion. The key element to retain is that a failure to act will result in a disappearance of all eel fishing and aquaculture sectors if the stock decline continues.
Measures to protect eel stocks fall under Article 37 of the Treaty, as are considered to be agricultural products for the purposes of this Treaty Article.
The principal element of the Regulation is the establishment of national eel management plans, by means of which each Member State will achieve the objective of a 40% escapement of adult silver eel from each river basin (measured with respect to undisturbed conditions). These plans should be reviewed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries and, if a positive evaluation is received should be approved by the Commission and should come into force on 1 July 2007.
Given the urgency of the situation, eel survival should be improved as much as is possible, compatible with social and economic needs, by imposing fishery closures for 15 days each month. These closures should stay in force until a Member State has implemented an approved Eel Management Plan.
Fishing could continue during the closed period if a Member State can reliably demonstrate that existing measures are in conformity with the 40% objective described in Section 3.1 or if the fishing is for glass eel to be used for restocking purposes.
Restoring the eel stock will bring benefits to eel fishermen in all member states. It will deliver important social and economic benefits in sectors that depend on eel, such as marketing and distribution and aquaculture. All Member States should make an equitable, concerted and harmonised effort to protect their eel populations, in order that all may benefit from a restoration of the eel population. Therefore, the main part of the proposed Regulation is cast as an obligation for Member States to achieve a specified target for eel management. The choice of management instruments to use is at the discretion of Member States. This is an appropriate division of responsibilities between Member States and Community. The choice of a devolved approach based principally on eel management plans devised by Member States, but whose objective is determined in Community legislation and whose quality and fitness is subject to review by Community institutions is a appropriate method, in terms both of subsidiarity and of proportionality, for managing a common Community fish resource that is distributed in diverse river systems, and in diverse fisheries and installations.
The Regulation has negligible direct additional budgetary implications for the community budget. Budgetary implications concerning support for research on eels are considered in the context of the seventh Framework Programme. State aid applicable to fisheries and its applicability to eel fisheries and environmental measures are addressed in the European Fisheries Fund.
The Commission will shortly propose the establishment of a traceability system to assist in the fight against poaching. As a first step in this process, the Commission proposes that the provisions concerning control and enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy should also apply to eel fisheries and to eel products. In addition, the Commission intends to explore measures to limit the export of glass eels, compatible with international trade law, to increase the amount of glass eels available for stock enhancing measures and required for conservation purposes.
Appropriate management of eel stocks and fisheries requires consideration of both the impact of fisheries and the impact of environmental modifications such as dams, eel passes and hydroelectric installations. The present regulation addresses the management of the eel stocks per se . The scope and conditions of financial assistance for implementation of these measures are being addressed in the context of the European Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2007-2013.