report on emp evaluations updated 2010 reports/advice/2010...this report presents the evaluations of...

REPORT OF THE ICES SECRETARIAT

March 2010

REVIEW SERVICE: EVALUATION OF EEL MANAGEMENT

PLANS

Secretariat International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

Conseil International pour l Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44 46

DK-1553 Copenhagen V

Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00

Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15

www.ices.dk

[email protected]

http://www.ices.dk

Review Service: Evaluation of Eel Management Plans | i

Co n t en t s

Introduction ............................................................................................................................

1

Evaluation of EMP for MS Belgium

.................................................................................

11

Evaluation of EMP for MS Czech Republic

....................................................................

14

Evaluation of EMP for MS Denmark

...............................................................................

18

Evaluation of EMP for MS Estonia

...................................................................................

23

Evaluation of EMP for MS Finland

..................................................................................

27

Evaluation of EMP for MS France

....................................................................................

32

Evaluation of MS Germany

...............................................................................................

35

Evaluation of EMP for MS Latvia

.....................................................................................

50

Evaluation of EMP for MS Lithuania...............................................................................

53

Evaluation of EMP for MS Luxembourg

.........................................................................

56

Evaluation of EMP for MS Netherlands

..........................................................................

59

Evaluation of EMP for MS Poland

...................................................................................

65

Evaluation of EMP for MS Portugal

.................................................................................

69

Evaluation of EMP for MS Republic of Ireland

.............................................................

73

Evaluation of EMP for MS Sweden:

.................................................................................

77

Evaluation of EMP for MS UK: England and Wales

.....................................................

81

Evaluation of EMP for MS UK: Northern Ireland Eastern RBD

.................................

89

Evaluation of EMP for MS: U.K. Northern Ireland, Neagh/Bann River Basin District

................................................................................................................

92

Evaluation of EMP for MS UK: Scotland

........................................................................

96

Addendum to ICES Secretariat report of 13 November 2009

....................................

101

Evaluation of EMP for MS Italy

...............................................................................

102

Evaluation of EMP for MS Greece

...........................................................................

119

Evaluation of EMP for MS Spain

.............................................................................

124

ICES Secretariat Review Service comments to the French response

...................

144

ICES Secretariat Review Service comments to the Portuguese response

...........

146

EC request to ICES on evaluation of applications of exemption from the obligation to submit Eel Management Plans from Bulgaria and Slovenia.

............................................................................................................

148

Review Service: Evaluation of Eel Management Plans | iii

Pr ef ace

This document is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service

and as such

is

not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. The national eel manage-ment plans are screened to assist the European Commission s evaluation. This screening provides impartial statements on the completeness, consistency, clarity, and robustness of the plans relative to requirements of the Council Regulation and guidelines..

Eel experts in some cases have been consulted but are in no way respon-sible for the evaluations below.

Review Service: Evaluation of Eel Management Plans | 1

In t roduct ion

Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of European eel compels Member States (MS) to develop eel man-agement plans (EMPs) that as a basic concept will ensure 40% of silver eel biomass is allowed to escape to the Sea relative to an estimate of pristine (Article 2 (4)).

While most of the eel population occurs in EU

Member States (MS) there are compo-nents of the eel stock in Norwegian and Russian Federation waters.

Developing a common method by which to assess all plans was a challenging part of the process of evaluating the EMPs. The EC Terms of Reference (ToR) requested an assessment focused on analyzing accuracy, reliability, compatibility, and effective-ness. These are all d ifficult parameters to assess in the reality of a data poor situation across Europe.

The evaluations are based on the plans

of Member States. An evaluation of their im-plementation will clearly need to be done at a later stage. A screening template was developed which was applied to all MS EMPs.

The general approach within the evaluations has been to note only where issues have been identified ; otherwise no comments at all have been used to address specific components of the evaluation template. This approach has been adopted to avoid description where measures are more adequately dealt with by the EMP itself.

Within the evaluation of each plan a

level of accuracy on a low, medium, or high (corresponding roughly to coefficient of variation of 50%, 30%, and 20% respectively) scale have been assigned to the estimates based on transparency of the calculations and data used to make the estimates.

This report presents the evaluations of the EMPs that have been reviewed at ICES Secretariat but does not include Spain since final translations are still in process. [No plans were received from Italy and Greece].

For Bulgaria an evaluation of their appli-cation for being exempted from the requirement to deliver an EMP can only

be done after the Greek plan has been received and evaluated. Some MS were exempted from the requirement to deliver EMPs (Austria, Cyprus, Malta, Republic of Slovakia, and Romania).

The EMP evaluations are presented in alphabetical order. Tables and fig-ures referred to within the ind ividual EMP evaluations refer to the tables and figures from the respective EMPs.

In parallel with the Secretariat s evaluation of the EMPs

EC DG MARE consulted with MS based on draft evaluations. This allowed MS to change the EMPs where is-sues were identified .

This process developed through exchange of emails. Not all issues have been resolved and the status of pending issues is stated within the evaluations.

The EMPs are not always found to be clear or definitive in their commitment to measures, monitoring, and stocking making evaluation d ifficult. These aspects de-pend on funding and (especially for stocking) the availability of supply will limit the ability of Member States to implement this measure as a means of realizing the target set out by the Regulation.

The 2008 EIFAC/ICES WGEEL report defines stocking as:

The practice of adding fish [eels] to a waterbody from another source, to supplement ex-isting populations or to create a population where none exists

2 |

The Regulation uses the term restocking to refer to this practice. The terms stock-ing and restocking have been used interchangeably in this report.


Th e Ter m s o f Ref er en ce f r o m t h e Eu r o p ean Co m m i ss i o n

1 )

When two or more MS share a river basin, are the methods used to esti-mate biomass compatible/consistent?

2 )

In cases where Member States have only one plan, is this plan expected to achieve at least 40% escapement of silver eel within the timeframe men-tioned?

For Member States with two or more plans, will the 40% target be achieved as a national average? (i.e. One or more plans of a Member State might achieve less than 40% escapement, provided that other plans achieve more than 40%, so that escapement is at least 40% of the potential escapement for the entire territory of that Member State.)

3 )

:

3.1 )

Is the estimate of potential silver eel escapement accurate?

3.2 )

In case of a shared basin, are the estimates coherent?

4 )

:

4.1 )

Are the methods used (a, b and c, as referred to in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) 1100/2007) to calculate potential silver eel escape-ment reliable?

4.2 )

In case the river basin is covered by two or more plans, are the cho-sen methods compatible?

5 )

Restocking:

5.1 )

What is the expected contribution of the restocking measures to-wards the escapement target?

5.2 )

Are the areas and times selected for restocking appropriate, i.e. could the restocked eels complete their inland lifecycle and could they begin their spawning migration from the restocked area?

6 )

Quantify the potential contribution (in terms of silver eel biomass) of each proposed measure towards the achievement of the escapement target.

7 )

Does/do the plan(s) include adequate measures to monitor and verify its/their successful implementation? [N.B. We are not talking about fisher-ies monitoring here. We are talking about measures that would ensure that the plan is implementable and has a good chance of achieving the goals described therein].

8 )

Give your qualitative analysis of the possible effectiveness of each plan as a whole. Also give your qualitative analysis for any set of plans pertaining to a shared river basin.

9 )

For river basins having two or more plans, ind icate all cases where such plans may have a negative impact on each other's effectiveness.

10 )

:

10.1 )

ICES experts should not analyze plans from their Member State of origin.

10.2 )

The ICES advice to the Commission must not exceed 5 pages per plan. For Member States having submitted two or more plans, one additional page may be used for advice on these plans as a group.

4 |

Th e f u t u r e d evel o p m en t o f t h e eel s t o ck

It is important to consider the probable general fu ture development of the entire eel stock, with various fishing intensity scenarios, in order to understand the forecasts made in the EMP for each river basin district for the local population of eel.

According to Åström & Dekker (2007) the forecast of the development in the eel stock recovery is that even a total stop in fishing will not rebuild the stock to the target level until about 80 years from now (see Figure 1). This is because eel recruitment has been so low in recent years. It can be seen from the figure that recruitment will in-crease to about 25% of the historic level in 5 years time, but then again decrease be-cause of recent weak recruitment. The analysis shows further that in order to just prevent further decline in the stock in the long term, fishing needs to be reduced to only 15% of the present level. In this analysis only fishing mortality is considered, but it is likely that other ways of reducing

eel mortality would also be effective.

Although at the European level the timeframe for meeting the escapement target may be considered long-term, this does not mean that certain river basins cannot meet the target of 40% silver eel escapement in the short term. Some river basins may already be meeting or exceeding the target.

Hopefully, when the eel stock is rebuilt to the extent that the 40% of pristine silver eel escapement is realised , R is expected to have returned to the historic level. There seems to be no eel-specific analysis available in the scientific literature to support this, but it is generally the case for fish stocks, that stock sizes above 30-50% of virgin stock size will not mean an impaired recruitment.

In 2008 and 2009 the recruitment was lower than assumed in Åström and Dekker (2007) and if recruitment continues at that low level in only a few more years the re-covery time will be longer than estimated by Åström and Dekker. In that case many of the EMPs will have to be revised towards further reduction in anthropogenic mor-tality and further stocking provided stocking material is available.


Figure 1. Expected recruitment (expressed as proportion of historical recruitment) after a complete fishery closure at j = 0 (solid line) or only restricting fishery to the breakpoint (15% of current fishery pressure) where no long-term recovery occur (dashed line). Figure modified from Åström and Dekker (2007).

Th e sh o r t an d m ed i u m - t er m t i m escal e i s an i m p o r t an t f ac t o r i n

t h e l o n g t er m d evel o p m en t o f t h e s t o ck

The effectiveness of many EMPs depends on an improvement of natural recruitment over time. The time frame for attaining the 40% target is often extremely long-term, such as 80 to 200 years. This is mainly based on the facts of the long generation time of eel (10-20 years) and that the eel stock has been depleted to such a low-level, that even with a total cessation of all fishing it is estimated that stock recovery would take at least 80 years (Åström and Dekker, 2007).

These calculations are based on a European wide stock consideration. It might be possible, that for a few river systems there is still enough natural recruitment to meet the target of 40% of pristine silver eel escapement. In these areas with sufficient natu-ral recruitment, a fishery can be continued according to the Eel Regulation. How-ever, such a fishery will mean that the recovery of the eel stock will take longer than 80 years and there is a risk that recovery will never be achieved.

Therefore, if the eel stock should be rebuilt, further measures in addition to reduced fishing become important in the short and medium term, which in this context is un-derstood as the next decade or two.

Extensive stocking with glass eel from areas that have a surplus amount to areas that have a deficit is the main possibility or hope for rebuilding if a total fishing ban is not politically possible. The Eel Regulation request to use 35% in 2010 and 60% of the glass eel caught commercially from 2013 and onwards for stocking.

ICES has advised

on stocking in 2008 (ICES Advice Report 2008):

Translocation and stocking of eel may involve a risk of decreased genetic variability. Movement and stocking could disrupt migration behaviour and could lead to spread-ing of diseases and parasites. A lthough there is a general consensus that the Euro-pean eel stock is one panmictic homogeneous stock, there is some uncertainty about this view. There is little scientific basis for judging the potential benefits from stock-

6 |

ing, but it is highly unlikely that the 40%

recovery objective can be met primarily

through stocking. Stocking should not be considered a remedy/solution for overfish-ing, or for ameliorating or mitigating any other anthropogenic activities adversely af-fecting the stock. In some cases where eels are

so depleted that a river basin is at risk

of no longer contributing to the spawning stock, stocking might be used as a last re-sort. However, large-scale stocking should not be allowed unless a scientific evalua-tion demonstrates that the potential escapement of silver eels will be enhanced. If stocking occurs, procedures to prevent the introduction and spreading of parasites and diseases according to the European fish disease prevention policies should be ap-plied.

From this ICES advice it is clear that stocking may contribute to silver eel escape-ment, but that uncertainties remain.

In the present evaluation we have assumed that silver eel based on stocking are able to find the way to the Sargasso Sea and contribute to spawning.

In the present evaluation some rough estimates of the additional amount of juvenile eel for stocking needed for each EMP to reach the 40% target in the medium term (that is within a decade or two) have been made. These estimates have been made because, if the eel stock is not improving in the medium term, natural recruitment will never be high enough for many EMPs to reach their target within the timeframes given, which most often are based on Åström & Dekker (2007) as described above. We will assume that the approach regarding stocking described in a given EMP is used also for the additional stocking that we have used and that similar suitable stocking areas can be found as those described within the EMP. In cases where this is not possible, subjective expert judgement regard ing the ratio between juvenile eel stocked and resulting silver eel escapement one eel generation time later will be used. The unit of glass eel catch corresponding to the restocking amount will be used , i.e. taking into account the mortality in 1) the glass eel fishing process, 2) the transport and 3) the aquaculture pre-feeding phase if relevant.

50% mortality has been used for 1) and 2) combined as large amounts of glass eel will likely come from trawling with a high mortality. For 3) we use 50% mortality for aquaculture pre-feeding phase, based on the relations below.

Where an EMP does not provide d irect estimates, the value of 1t of glass (0.3g) stocked results in 100tonnes of silver eel given no fishing or other anthropogenic mortality (from e.g. the Dutch EMP). We use 1tonne of elvers (2-5g) gives 25tonnes (from e.g. the Danish EMP).

Many EMPs include stocking with glass eel and elvers. Often it is not stated precisely what size groups of juvenile eel correspond to the numbers given for the stocking intensity. Because of the mortality from one stage to another this information is needed for calculating what volume of glass eel catches will be required and for esti-mating the contribution to the target silver eel escapement. Several countries need to provide more specific information on this issue in their EMP.

Hi st o r i c cat ch es an d p r i s t i n e s i l ver eel escap em en t

Historic catches can be used as a proxy for pristine silver eel escapement. We assume that if these eel had not been caught, they would have grown and survived to silver eel stage except those dying due to natural causes. If growth and natural mortality is


assumed to compensate each other, 1 tonnes of catch will correspond to 1 tonnes of silver eel escapement. If some data are available this very simple model can be im-proved as done in the Lithuanian EMP for instance by use of a simple model by Dek-ker et al (2008), to get an estimate that a catch of 250 tonnes corresponded to a potential pristine escapement of 333 tonnes (in this case a little more than the catch itself). The one-to-one relationship is most often an underestimate as in the old times with high catches still some eel survived to silver eel stages and this amount if known should be added to the above estimate. We have used a 1:1 relationship in cases where better data were not available and fishing pressure has been high.

Un d er r ep o r t i n g

It is known that a substantial amount of eel catches are not included in the official catch statistics. Accord ing to Moriarty (1996, p.44) the actual catch in

1993 was 21,224 tonnes in comparison to 14,882 tonnes officially reported to FAO. Both figures in-clude aquaculture production, which was 5,910 tonnes in 1993. Moriarty considered this as a conservative estimate since, in most cases, no additional facts on the commercial catch were available and data on recreational catch is based either on sample surveys or by simple extrapolation from known number of licenses and sup-posed annual catch by ind ividuals. This means that at least about 70% should be added to the official catch figures from capture fisheries reported to FAO.

Some EMPs do provide estimates of underreporting of commercial catches and of recreational catches. Other EMPs do not. Thus, if silver eel escapement estimates are based on official catch data the estimates should in most cases be raised to account for this. It is however d ifficult to give an appropriate value at this stage. When all EMPs are available and a pan-

European overview can be made, a general figure could be used and applied to

each country unless there are better data available.

Gl ass eel f o r s t o ck i n g

Article 7 (1) of the Regulation titled: Measures concerning restocking, states:

1. If a Member State permits fishing for eels less than 12 cm in length, either as part of an Eel

Management Plan established in accordance with Article 4 (2) or Article 5(4), it shall reserve at least 60 % of the eels less than 12 cm in length caught by the fisheries in that Member State during each year to be marketed for use in restocking in eel river basins as defined by Member States according to Article 2(1) for the pur-pose of increasing the escapement of silver eels.

In Section 3.7 of The Guidance Document for the Preparation of Eel Management Plans, in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, directs MS to within their EMPs:

Describe the system used to ensure that, by 2013, 60% of eel less than 12cm long, caught each year in your Member State are used for restocking, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007.

The Regulation requires the establishment of a supply of glass eel reserved for stock-ing.

Some EMPs are totally dependent (where almost no natural recruitment occurs anymore) on stocking to meet the targets as set by the Regulation. We have assumed that these amounts of glass eel are available for stocking, i.e. that somewhere (mainly France, Spain and UK) natural recruitment is still higher than needed for a given river basin and that the financial foundation is in place. If this is not the case then some countries will have to reduce or almost completely stop fishing eel and further

8 |

reduce turbine and other sources of mortality in order to meet the requirements of the Regulation.

An g u i l l i co l a cr assu s

EIFAC/ICES (2008) notes that the swim-bladder parasite Anguillicola crassus

which is

known to adversely impact spawner quality, is now widespread in the European eel population. In light of limited supply, generally, the practice of stocking clean glass eels into an infected river basin is not considered best management practice.

A. crassus

cause additional mortality to eel, in periods to a very high extent. This has however, been d ifficult to quantify and are often not included in the estimation ap-proach used in the EMPs. We have attempted to highlight this in the individual evaluations when found relevant.

Im p r o ved h ab i t at

Most EMPs include several soft measures like improve water quality, remove bar-riers, etc, which is important for eel survival. Often the effects on silver eel escape-ment are not quantified . These

soft measures on their own are not regarded as contributing enough to recover the eel stock because in general there seems to be enough quality habitats available

except for hydropower turbine and pumping sta-tion mortality which through a decrease in this mortality factor can here and now contribute to increased silver eel escapement.

Di ver s i t y vs . sav i n g t h e eel s t o ck

In some plans e.g. the Swedish EMP, it is stated as a goal to keep eel in each water system in order to preserve biodiversity. This concern is not part of the Eel regulation and is therefore not included in the evaluation.

Some of these waters are above hydro-electric dams and the mortality in the turbines of the eels when they attempt to escape as silver eel is very high in Sweden. Releasing below such barriers may be a more effective way of improving the stock.

Fu r t h er s t u d i es an d m easu r es

The Regulation has begun an important process in requiring further studies and measures to support the conservation of the European eel. Future reporting years will allow for more accurate assessments not only in terms of eel stocks, but also in the effectiveness of EMPs and associated management measures. It seems generally that countries are very keen to improve monitoring and we are confident that significant improvements will be seen in the fu ture. In most EMPs there are well specified plans with a significant amount of commitment and enthusiasm.

Ref er en ces

Dekker W., Ch. Deerenberg ir H. Jansen, 2008. Duurzaam beheer van de aal in Nederland. Onderbouwing van een beheerplan. Wageningen IMARES IJmuiden. Rapport C041/08, 99 p.


ICES 2008. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2008. ICES Advice, 2008, Book 9.

ICES/EIFAC 2008. Report of the 2008 session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels. ICES CM 2008/ACOME:15

Moriarty, C. 1996. The European eel fishery in 1993 and 1994. Fisheries Bulletin (Dub-lin) 14.

Åström, M. and Dekker W. 2007. When will the eel recover? A full life cycle model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1491 1498.

10 |

Eval u at i o n s b y Co u n t r y


Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Belg ium

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service

and as such

is not

ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee.

Only issues which have been identified

as possibly causes for not achieving the objectives of

the regulation are specifically

mentioned.

1.

Compatibility/consistency of methods used to estimate biomass in shared river basins;

a.

General:

Time did not allow Belgium to coordinate the EMP with neighbouring countries. However, the method used was a habitat area multiplied by production per ha approach and the EMP is therefore relatively easy to compare with other countries.

b.

Special attention devoted to the Baltic Sea and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in the preamble (11) of Coun-cil Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

There is no commercial fishing for eels in the coastal waters of Belgium.

2.

Estimate of silver eel escapement;

a.

Reliability of methods used (Is the model scientifically sound and is it supported with sufficient and reliable data), as referred to in Article 2(5) of the Regulation to calculate potential silver eel es-capement:

i.

Estimate of pristine escapement:

Belgium uses the method of production per area multiplied by area. The production per ha value used stems from the literature (10 kg/ha) and is low (compared e.g. with Denmark [50 kg/ha of running water and 8 kg/ha for lakes] and the Netherlands [25 kg/ha for flowing water, 19-25 kg/ha for lakes and 10-16 kg/ha for small waters bodies and canals]). The habitat area estimate used in the multiplication is low as well; although a lot of information is provided in the EMP, time did not allow for a detailed quantification of this issue. Thus, the estimate of pristine escapement is likely an underestimate. The total estimate of pristine silver eel escapement for Belgium is 220 tonnes per year.

ii.

Estimate of current escapement:

The current escapement is estimated to be 49 tonnes per year.

iii.

Current potential escapement given no fishing:

Commercial fishing in Belgium has been banned since 2006. Recreational fishing in Flanders is reported as 42 tonnes per year (with no distinction between yellow and silver eel). In Wallonia and Brussels, fishing for eel is almost zero as there is no commercial fishing and anglers are obliged to release catches due to high levels of contaminants and the human health risk associated with eel consumption. Adding this quantity to 49 tonnes gives 91 tonnes, assuming that growth and mortality of the extra 42 tonnes cancel each other out.

iv.

Current potential escapement given no anthropogenic mortality at all:

No overall value is given but by deductions from Tables 30 and 31 it can be estimated to be 86 tonnes per year. However this only relates to silver eel mortality and does not include

12 |

yellow eel mortality (see section 2.4.2.2). Adding pumping station and turbine mortality in the order of magnitude of 10 tonnes to the 91 tonnes mentioned above results in around 100 tonnes.

v.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of current and pristine silver eel escapement:

The pristine escapement is probably underestimated, but otherwise the accuracy of estimates is assessed as medium.

b.

Coherency of estimates for shared river basins:

The estimates of pristine escapement are much lower than comparable ones made by the Netherlands. France does not provide estimates.

c.

Compatibility of methods used for shared river basins:

Similar method as used by the Netherlands. France does not provide estimates.

3.

Restocking

a.

Expected contribution of restocking measures to reaching the es-capement target:

Restocking is only intended for the Scheldt river basin and will contribute about 5% to the escapement target.

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with

re-spect to restocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and be-ginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

Restocking will be targeted in areas with low anthropogenic mortality and with high-quality habitats.

c.

Does the EMP include the requirement for reserving 35% increas-ing to 60% of eel less than 12 cm caught (live and dead glass eel), for stocking (Article 7, (1 &2)?

Glass eel fishing is prohibited in Belgium.

4.

Quantification of expected contribution (in terms of silver eel biomass) of each proposed measure towards the achievement of the escapement target:

Quantifications are provided in table 46 and 47 in the EMP.

5.

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock (Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.

Time schedule for the attainment of the target level set in Article 2, (4 & 9):

i.

Reported time schedule for reaching the 40% goal:

As stated in section 5.3:

the restoring of free fish migration and the reducing of mortality in down-stream migration will have to be achieved at the latest in 2027. If we count on at least one generation of eel so that the effect of these measures actually becomes visible, a cautious and early estimate is that the eel stock will recover in 2040.

ii.

Intermediate time schedule reflecting the gradual approach :


See tables in section in 5.3 of the Belgian EMP.

iii.

Measures as of the first year:

See tables in section 5.3. Glass eel fishing, commercial eel fishing, recreational fishing in Wallonia banned since 2006. A ban on Fyke net fishing in the lower Zeeschelde will be implemented from 2009-2014, as well as minor restrictions on recreational fishing in Flanders in 2009.

iv.

Expected recruitment level:

No specific quantitative expectation.

b.

Likelihood/probability of achieving the target within the time-frame mentioned:

Achieving the target will depend on natural recruitment returning to higher levels. Recruitment does not have to return to previous levels (pre-1980 level) because Belgium is restricting eel mortality substantially compared to previously, so less than a full recovery of eel recruitment might be enough.

c.

With two or more plans, achieving the 40% target for all or as na-tional average:

Implicitly the target seems to be strived for as a national average, but is not specifically stated. The two main RBDs in Belgium are reported as currently achieving 19% escapement (Scheldt) and 30% escapement (Meuse) respectively.

6.

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful implementa-tion of the plan(s);

a.

Monitor and verify management target:

The plan seems to contain the needed issues.

7.

Qualitative analyses of the plan(s);

a.

Qualitative analysis of possible effectiveness of the (each) plan as a whole:

Belgium has a lot of barriers in their river systems. Belgium plans to reduce these and improve migration possibilities (including reducing turbine and pumping station mortality) for eel, substantially. Belgium has reduced fishing substantially already. If natural recruitment to Belgium does not recover and if there is a surplus of glass eel available in other countries then it might be necessary to increase the stocking. Also

the pristine escapement might need to be revised.

b.

Qualitative analysis for plans pertaining to a shared river basin:

The low fishing pressure in Belgium and the planned improvement in migration possibili-ties (including reducing turbine and pumping station

mortality) will all benefit eels from shared rivers basins from other countries.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope

of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coor-dination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

The mortality which occurs in Belgium to silver eel migrating from other countries in shared river basins needs to be taken into account within the eel management plans of the relevant countries.

14 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Czech Repub l ic


and as such

is not ICES

advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee.

Only issues which have been identified as possibly

causes for not achieving the objectives of

the regulation are specifically mentioned.

1


a.

General:

Coordination of efforts is of prime importance in this plan since its effectiveness hinges on downstream measures. Plans to coord inate with Germany and Poland on the Elbe and Oder River Basins are to be established in 2009.

The Czech Republic EMP

states that:

The presented EMUs will become part of transboundary EMUs that will be of a superior impor-tance provided that the partner Member States (MS) adopt measures of a similar nature. Failing this, the objective of the proposed measures in the Czech

Republic will be generally meaningless and exclusion of the specific EMU and adoption of a 50% regulation on fisheries will be consid-ered until the MS will implement corrective measures (the Oder River Basin).

(Czech EMP, Annotation, p.2)

This is a justified approach since Czech Republic is upstream and implemented measures will only be effective if eel survival is improved in downstream countries (i.e. Germany and Poland).

b.

Special attention devoted to the Baltic Sea and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in the preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

Baltic state EMPs need to be coord inated with Denmark and Sweden where Baltic silver eels are fished on their migration towards the Sargasso Sea. The Czech Republic is in this context a Baltic state because of the Oder River.

2


a.

Reliability of methods used (Is the model scientifically sound and is it supported with sufficient and reliable data), as referred to in Article 2(5) of the Regulation to calculate potential silver eel escapement:

i.


No attempt to estimate pristine escapement is made. A complicating factor is the existence of fish ponds in Czech Republic: 24,000 fish ponds and water reservoirs used for aquaculture reported as 51,800 ha (these areas are not currently stocked with eel). Whether these are natu-ral or mostly artificial habitats is not clear from the EMP.

i i .

Estimation of current escapement:

Not given.

i i i .


Not given.

iv.

Current potential escapement given no anthropogenic mortality:


Not given.

b.


The model presented is aiming at estimating the survival contribution from the various measures. It is very d ifficult to follow the model details. The presentation does not allow a repetition of the calculations; exact input data are missing for instance.

An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , based on the data presented the estimates have been assigned a low level of accuracy.

c.


No estimate given.

d.


No estimate given.

3

Restocking

a.

Expected contribution of restocking measures to reaching the escapement target:

The EMP states that:

The goal of allocating 20% of adult eels into major migration corridors will be observed when restocking. This measure will increase the total eel return rate in the Elbe River Basin to 46% and in the Oder River basin to 55%, thus achieving

the required target status (Czech Republic EMP, Appendix II, p. 13).

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with respect to restocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

The EMP aims to restock within EMUs based on the stocking densities used in the 1980s.

The EMP presents a selection criteria that is aimed at ensuring eels are stocked in areas that are based on conservation best practice concepts. However, restocking efforts need to be co-ordinated with Poland and Germany.

The purchase of glass eels from outside the catchment, to add to the natural recruitment into a river basin with an established fishery, and impacts from turbine mortality, may not be the most efficient use of scarce resources if the primary aim of stocking is to support conserva-tion.

c.

Does the EMP include the requirement for reserving 35% increasing to 60% of eel less than 12 cm caught (live and dead glass eel), for stocking (Article 7, (1 &2)?

There is no glass eel in Czech Republic.

4


The EMP for the Czech Republic uses a Rate of Return Model. Table 3 on p.6 of the Appendix II, calculates an estimate of the effectiveness of the adopted measures on total rate of return of the European eel from the Czech Republic. In this table measures are linked by percentages to an estimation of effectiveness.

16 |

5


a.


i.


The EMP does not provide a time schedule for reaching a 40% escapement goal as defined by the Regulation. An alternate time schedule is provided, see below.

i i .


The EMP presents a detailed time schedule for implementation of measures linked to effec-tiveness and the rate of return model they use to assess compliance. There are two phases presented for both the Elbe and Oder River Basins. The first is from 2009-2012 and the second phase is from 2012-2018.

i i i .


It is stated that Adoption of measure to begin process of reducing fishing by 50% relative to the 2004-2006 reference period . Methodological conception of a measure to reduce mortality of juveniles and recovery of the natural spatial d istribution. Thus, the measures have still to be developed.

iv.


No natural recruitment expected

v.

Likelihood/probability of achieving the target within the timeframe men-tioned:

No silver eel escapement target given.

b.

With two or more plans, achieving the 40% target for all or as national av-erage:

EMP submitted as one plan.

6

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful implementation of the plan(s);

a.


Plans to construct further monitoring stations are adequate.

7


a.

Qualitative analysis of possible effectiveness of

the (each) plan as a whole:

Since only little fishing will take place in Czech Republic and in the EMP they describe im-proving eel survival through various soft measures such as improving migration routes etc. the plan is adequate.

Most of the Czech Republic wetland habitat is historically eel habitat and it may be possible to use the habitat approach to estimate pristine silver eel escapement, by using production figures from nearby countries. This would have allowed for at least a rough quantification of the stocking needed to reach the 40% silver eel escapement target.

b.



The effectiveness of this plan depends d irectly on the effectiveness and measures of plans of shared river basins (i.e. Germany and Poland).

8

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

No negative impacts identified.

18 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Denm ark

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such

is not




the regulation are specifically men-

tioned.

The majority of the Eel habitat in Denmark exists within 1 nautical mile of the coast in transi-tional water which is brackish water. Whether eels spend the majority of their continental life stage in this transitional water or d ivide time migrating in and out of fresh water habitats is an unresolved issue. Only 5-10% of eel in Danish waters are found in freshwater habitats. The Danish EMP aims to obtain 40% of pristine silver eel escapement in the freshwater habitat and apply the 50% reduction of catch or effort on the fishery operating in the transitional wa-ter.

The Danish EMP that is evaluated below is based on

the original submitted which was sup-plemented by additional information and explanations. There are no pending issues.

1


a.

General:

No estimates are made for Kruså and Vidå basins shared with Germany. However, the plan states that the responsible authorities in both states have agreed on extended collaboration and monitoring for glass eel recruitment and silver eel

escapement for the two shared river systems and the Baltic Sea catchment generally. This only constitu tes a small part of the Dan-ish eel habitat and is not considered a major issue for the Danish EMP.

b.


The Danish plan only briefly mentions the important issue of eels originating from Baltic countries being caught by the Danish fishery. The EMP acknowledges that a substantial por-tion of the total Danish marine catch is comprised of Baltic Silver eel (Danish EMP, p.11). However, an estimated figure is not provided . As Denmark only

aims at reducing fishing by 50% in the marine water the Danish fishery will continue to impact the escapement of silver eels from other Baltic countries. This could seriously reduce the eel stock recovery efforts of other Baltic countries and mean that the 40% escapement target of pristine silver eel escape-ment from the Baltic will not be achieved . Coord ination between Denmark and other Baltic countries should be encouraged.

2


a.


i.


Pristine escapement is estimated to be 1110 tonnes. This figure is derived from the present area of inland water and pre-1980 production per hectare.

Estimate of production area by lakes is reported as 45,000 ha and running water is reported as 15000 ha while other sources report Denmark to have about 70,000 ha of lakes (Wikipedia


e.g.). The largest lake, Arresø, alone is 39,500 ha. The 70,000 ha corresponds to an increase of 200 tonnes of pristine silver eel escapement for a total of 1,310 tonnes silver eel escapement.

If the eel habitat in the marine area

of Denmark is included in this calculation likely total pris-

tine silver eel escapement can be estimated at 4,800 tonnes (See Annex 1).

i i .


The report claims that the current silver eel escapement from freshwater can be estimated at 100 tonnes. This estimate seems to be well justified . However, if this estimate had included the marine production area it would be significantly higher.

i i i .


No estimate provided.

iv .



b.


An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but based on the data presented the accu-racy has been assessed as medium.

c.


No estimates are made for the shared Kruså and Vidå basins. As mentioned above, this only constitu tes a small part of the Danish eel habitat and is not considered

a major issue for the Danish EMP. The Danish calculation procedure could easily be applied to this sub-area if use-ful for future coordination efforts with Germany.

d.


No issues identified.

3

Restocking

a.


Restocking is expected to contribute 25 tonnes to the escapement target with a time lag of 15 years.

b.


River systems chosen for restocking are so-called suited for stocking in being without det-rimental effects from, e.g. hydropower turbines; and offering food and hid ing places for the stocked eels.

c.


Glass eel fishing is illegal in Denmark.

4


20 |

Measures in fresh water: Measures outlined include a closed season expected to contribute 11 tonnes of yellow and silver eel annually.

Stocking: A continuation of present plans should contribute 25 tonnes of silver eel annually after 15 years.

Measures in salt water: Measures described should increase escapement of silver eel by 100

250%. How this estimate translates into biomass is uncertain as is the proportion of eels caught that originate from Danish waters and from the waters of other Baltic Sea states.

5

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of

silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock (Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.


i.


No specific time schedule is reported , only the time frame of one eel generation of 15 years for stocking efforts to take effect. The Danish plan is dependent on improvements in the natu-ral recruitment which might take half centuries or even not materialize.

i i .


2009-2013 is referred to as a period after which further measures (total inland fishery closure) may be implemented pending monitoring results from the first years of implementation of the Regulation.

i i i .


The plan outlines regulatory measures to be introduced in the period 2009-2013 with the aim of reducing effort in the eel fishery in fresh, coastal, and transitional waters.

iv .


No precise expectation of recruitment is presented.

v.


As stated above, no specific timeframe is given. It is unlikely that the 40% silver eel escape-ment target will be obtained unless natural recruitment improves significantly. As improved recruitment is not expected in the near fu ture further reductions of anthropogenic mortality or higher levels of eel stocking will be required. If only extra restocking is attempted then a rough estimate would be that glass eel corresponding catch in e.g. France of 50 tonnes would be needed for this purpose (see Annex 2).

b.


N/A

6

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful implementation of the plan(s); Monitor and verify management target:

The proposed program includes d irect monitoring of silver eel escapement in 3 index catch-ments (every three years).

This data will be used with other population density data to de-velop the model relationship between yellow eel density and silver eel output. The existing surveys that monitor recruitment (pass traps and electro fishing) in 3 river basins will be ex-panded by 2-3 river basins in 2009. (Danish EMP, p.19).


7


a.


The silver eel escapement in the coastal areas will not reach 40% of the pristine escapement target unless there are significant improvements to natural recruitment. As this is not ex-pected to happen within the next several decades, further reductions in anthropogenic mor-tality and/or substantial extra stocking will be required to attain the 40% target.

However,

Denmark might formally live up to the regulation if it is acceptable that Denmark apply arti-cle 8 regard ing Community waters to this area.

b.


There are no plans pertaining to the shared Kruså and Vidå basins except monitoring of glass eel recruitment and silver eel escapement from the two river systems and the Baltic Sea catchment area in general.

8

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for

shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

There are no plans

pertaining to the shared Kruså and Vidå basins. The Danish plan includes a reduction of effort of 50% in marine water. If and when other MS around the Baltic Sea are successful with their EMPs, CPUE and possibly catch is likely to increase. This will reduce the contribution of other Baltic countries EMPs to the eel stock recovery.

Annex 1

Mean catch of eel in marine waters in Denmark in 1935-39 is given in Blegvad (1943). From data in Otterstrøm (1912) about eel catches in 1908-1912 and ICES Fisheries Statistical data-base 1903-present (Bulletin Statistique) these 1935-39 data can be regarded as representative for the first half of the 20th Century.

Area Yel low eel Si lver eel Total Note

Belt Sea

750

750

1500

1 ½ mill kg

Western Baltic

67

67

134

Zealand, Møn, and Falster Baltic coast

62

438

500

About ½ mill kg

Bornholm 5

5

10

Only little catch. Split into eel type based on overall average split i.e. about fifty fifty.

The Sound

110

220

330

Kattegat and the fjords

333

167

500

A little above ½ kg

Limfjorden 666

334

1000

Up to 1 mill kg. Yellow eel fraction not given

assumed to be like Kattegat and the fjords

Ringkøbing and Nissum fjords

160

40

200

Somewhat under ¼ mill kg

Vadehavet 33

3

36

Sum 2186

2024

4210

If we use the Swedish estimate (based on tagging data) that half of the silver eel caught are of Baltic origin and that 1 kg of yellow eel corresponds to 1 kg of silver eel-

assuming that natu-

22 |

ral mortality balances growth then the silver eel production in Denmark was at least 2186+1012=3198 tonnes per year. To this should be added freshwater catches as well as Dan-ish silver eel survivors escaping to the Sargasso Sea. The freshwater pristine escapement is estimated to be 1110 tonnes. If it is assumed that 2/3 of the Danish silver

eel were caught in

the 1930s 506 tonnes would have escaped to the Sargasso Sea. So a realistic potential escape-ment might be roughly 4800 tonnes of silver eel for Denmark in the 1930s.

Thus a possible target silver eel escapement from Denmark is 1920 tonnes (40% of 4800t).

References:

Blegvad, H. (1943): Fiskeriet i Danmark . Selskabet til udgivelse af kulturskrifter, København (in Danish).

Otterstrøm, C.V. 1912: Danmarks fauna, bind 11, FISK I. -

G.E.C. Gads forlag, København.

Annex 2 .

The Danish EMP states that 22 000 glass eel of 2-5g gives 1 tonne of silver eel. If the Danish present and near fu ture escapement of silver eel is set to 300 tonnes (from both freshwater and marine areas in case of no fishing) there is a lack of 1620 tonnes. Thus, stocking should be of the order of 38 million glass eel of 2-5 g.

The average weight of glass eel when caught is 0.33g. Thus 38 million corresponds to 13 ton-nes. However, this ignores mortality in the period when they are caught to when they have grown from 0.33 g to 2-5 g. If that is set to 75% the corresponding catch of glass (in France, England or wherever) is 50 tonnes of glass eel 0.33g.


Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Est onia

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such

is not





tioned.

The Estonian EMP divides Estonian water bodies into two management units, the Narva RBD where the eel population is entirely based on stocking in inland waters, and the West-Estonian RBD which has a natural population of eels in coastal and inland waters.

1


a.

General:

The plan only includes the Estonian part of the Narva River Basin shared with Russia. Coop-eration with Russia is not mentioned beyond the acknowledgement of joint project with Rus-sia (Funded by the ERDF) that

investigated silver eel downstream migration in the Narva River (Estonian EMP, p. 24).

Due to low abundance of eel in the Koiva basin (Gauja in Latvian), shared with Latvia, it has not been included in the plan (Estonian EMP, p. 20).

Coordination plans with Latvia are required.

b.


Baltic state EMPs need to be coord inated with Denmark and Sweden where Baltic silver eels are fished on their migration towards the Sargasso Sea.

2


a.


i.


Narva RBD: This value is not provided. In the 1930s the catches in the two most important lakes were around 8 tonnes per year. This only represents a part of the catchment area that is described as suitable eel habitat. A rough estimate including the known

8 tonnes would need to include a few additional tonnes to account for the productivity from the rest of the catch-ment area. In addition, coastal catches (as a proxy for pristine escapement) will also have to be added to this value and these data may be available in Estonia.

West-Estonian Basin District: This value is not provided . Based on historic catches of about 500 tonnes per year in the coastal area most of which must come from the West-Estonian Ba-sin a rough estimate of pristine escapement could be 700 tonnes based on the Lithuanian model for relating catches to pristine escapement (See Lithuanian EMP, p. 36) and allowing for about 30 tonnes of Freshwater pristine production.

i i .


Narva RBD: Due to intensive stocking in the lakes it is estimated that the Silver eel escape-ment at present is 330 000-50 000= 280 000, some of these will be lost to turbine mortality; this is estimated to be around 50% which means that 140 000 silver eel will escape the river basin. The average weight is around 0.5 kg which means that about 70 tonnes of silver eel will es-

24 |

cape each year. A few of these will be caught in coastal fisheries resulting in a final escape-ment of a little less than 70 tonnes. Not d iscussed in the plan are tag loss, tag mortality, and under-reporting of captured tagged eels. These factors will reduce the estimate given above.

West-Estonian Basin District: This value is not specifically given but the 2008 total catch in coastal areas of Estonia was only about 5 tonnes. Using

the Lithuanian formula as above gives

a potential escapement of about 7 tonnes. If the catch of 5 tonnes is subtracted it gives a cur-rent escapement of 2 tonnes.

i i i .


Narva RBD: 330 000 silver eels some of which will succumb to turbine mortality etc. (see above) resulting in around 80 tonnes of potential escapement.

West-Estonian Basin District: current potential escapement without fishing is 7 tonnes.

iv .


Narva RBD: 330 000 silver eels corresponding to an escapement of around 160 tonnes per year.

West-Estonian Basin District: current potential escapement without anthropogenic mortality is 7 tonnes.

b.


An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but the data presented allows for a rough idea of its range. The estimates have been assigned a low level of accuracy.

c.


Estimates are made only for the Estonian part of the Narva River Basin (shared with Russia).

d.


Important in countries around the Baltic is the way that States define their eel management areas. Some include coastal waters while others almost exclude coastal waters and focus pri-marily on inland waters for management. These definitions have significant implications for implementation of the Regulation. Regard ing Estonia this is an issue

in connection with Lat-vian coastal waters.

3

Restocking

a.

Expected contribution of restocking measures to reaching the escapement tar-get:

Stocking is only planned for the Narva RBD. There is state stocking program for eel until 2010. This program is expected to contribute 100% to the escapement target.

Stocking is not planned for the West-Estonian basin district.

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with respect to re-stocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

Stocking in the Narva RBD is an established practice to support the fishery. There is one HPS which impacts downstream migration. Fishing is expected to take 15% of the potential es-capement and turbine mortality 50% of those surviving fishing.

The transfer of glass eels from outside the catchment, to add to the natural recruitment into a river basin with an established fishery, and impacts from turbine mortality, may not be the


most efficient use of scarce resources if the primary aim of stocking is to support conserva-tion.

c.


There is no glass eel fishery in Estonia.

4

Quantification of expected contribution (in terms of silver eel biomass) of each pro-posed measure towards the achievement of the escapement target:

Narva River Basin: Through stocking the plan exceeds the 40% escapement target with the current fishing and turbine mortality.

West-Estonian Basin District: The plan aims at reducing fishing to less than 50% of the 2004-2006 level and

as the 2008 catch was already reduced to less than 50% the EMP lives up to the criteria in Article 8 (1) of the Regulation. So implicitly the EMP claims that this West-Estonian Basin District is community water which as d iscussed in the introduction of the EMP evaluation report is a dubious approach for coastal fishing in the Baltic area.

5


a.


i.


The plan is

already compliant.

i i .


The plan is already compliant.

i i i .



iv .


The plan does not depend on natural recruitment; it is entirely dependent on stocking.

v.



b.

With two or more plans, achieving the 40% target for all or as national average:

Narva RBD: Already achieves the

escapement target.

West-Estonian Basin District: Reduces catches by 50%.

6


Monitoring is described briefly.

7


a.


26 |

Coordination with Denmark and Sweden is required to ensure that the contributions made by other Baltic states to improving silver eel escapement is not compromised by fishing silver eels on their migration route.

The silver eel escapement in the coastal areas will not reach 40% of the pristine escapement target unless there are significant improvements to natural recruitment. As this is not ex-pected within the next several decades, further reductions in anthropogenic mortality and/or substantial extra stocking will be required to attain the 40% target. However, Estonia might formally live up to the regulation if it is acceptable that Estonia apply article 8 regard ing

Community waters to this area.

b.


Cooperation with Russia on monitoring is mentioned. Further cooperation is recommended.

8

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins,

parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

No negative impact identified.


Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Fin land


and as such

is not



as possibly causes for not

achieving the objectives of


tioned.

The process of evaluating the EMPs developed through written correspondence between the European Commission and

Finland. The Finnish EMP made estimates based on stocking and not on pristine production as required by the Regulation. The plan

for Aaland Islands

is pre-sented in Annex I.

The plan for the Aaland Islands are not evaluated. Other issues have been resolved.

1


a.

General:

The Finnish EMP does not include shared river basins. There are minor shared river basins with Russia and on the other side a major shared river basin with Sweden. Both however are not important for eel.

b.



2


a.


i.


No estimate is provided . However, in the West Estonian Basin (which may have similar pro-duction levels to coastal Finland) an estimate of 700 tonnes was calculated at the ICES Secre-tariat using the Lithuanian method of relating catch data to production, corrected for the area of eel habitat. Very little catch data is provided in the Finnish EMP. However, catches from professional fishing in the Gulf of Finland (Figure 8. Section 8.2, Finnish EMP) report catches of about 1100kg in 1960, but it is likely that the stock was already substantially reduced at that time due to low recruitment as in other Baltic countries.

ii.


Current escapement is close to zero as there is almost no natural recruitment and very few eel from inland stocking escape to the sea. No specific estimate is made but it is reported that

Eel catches in the free migration area can be assessed to have been approximately 3-4 ton-nes/year in recent years.

Section 19.1

Catch obtainable from stocking

says:

In recent years, approximately 35 000 young eels (elvers) have been stocked each year in the maritime area, more specifically in the Gulf of Finland. The total catch from this area is cur-rently estimated to be 3-4 tonnes a year (Chapter 8.1). If the average fish caught is 0.4 kg, and

28 |

the natural mortality value is 50, then 4 200 kilos of eels may be caught, in addition to which 40% of the stocked eels would then escape

These values are plausible. 50% of 35 000 is ~18 000. If 4200 kg of 0.4 kg eel are caught then it is ~10 000. Thus ~8 000 are left for escapement which is 40% of the stocked eel (although this 40% conceptually at least has quite little to do with the 40% of pristine silver eel which is the focus of the EC Eel Regulation).

Compared to the Danish "formula" that 1 t of elvers (2-5 g) gives 25t of silver eel, 35 000 elvers of 3g is ~100 kg. This should result in 4200kg

+ escapement (4200 is 60% so 40% is about 3000kg) equal to about 7 tonnes, which is high compared to the 2.5 tonnes that results when using the Danish formula. The size of the elvers used by Finland is not specified and it is pos-sible the elvers are larger than 2-5 g and thus have lower mortality.

iii.


It might be possible to extract this value from the inland stocking values.

iv.


It might be possible to extract this value from the inland stocking values.

b.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of current

and pris-tine silver eel escapement:

An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but based on the data presented a medium level of accuracy has been assigned to the current escapement and a low level for the pristine escapement. .

c.


N/A

d.


N/A

3.

Restocking

a.


The plan aims to stock 500 000 glass eels in the so called Free migration area in the short-term increasing to 1 500 000 glass eels in the medium-

and long-term. Stocking

in inland wa-ters will continue at the current level. This is expected to contribute 100% to the escapement target (but is only 40% to the potential escapement due to fishing in inlands waters). It is not clear from the EMP whether these are glass eel or elvers and what ind ividual sizes are in-volved.

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with respect to re-stocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

Specific areas for

stocking and associated quantities are listed in section 18.2 (Finnish EMP). Stocking in the free migration areas are planned to compensate for the continued stocking of dammed areas with fishing. Stocking in the free migration area is appropriate as there is very little anthropogenic mortality at least until as silver eel they pass Denmark and Sweden.

The purchase of glass eels from outside the catchment, to add to the natural recruitment into a river basin with an established fishery, and impacts from turbine mortality, may not be the most efficient use of scarce resources if the primary aim of stocking is to support conserva-tion.


c.

Does the EMP include the requirement for reserving 35% increasing to 60% of eel

less than 12 cm caught (live and dead

glass eel), for stocking (Article 7, (1 &2)?

There is no glass eel fishery in Finland.

4.


Stocking and the facilitation of the migration of adult eels are the main parts of the plan. Stocking in coastal waters and some small rivers with no obstacles will give 100% escapement as there is almost no eel fishing in these areas. The aim is to stock with the number of glass eel that in total gives 40% escapement of potential escapement from stocking (both coastal and inland). So, this 40% has very little to do with the 40% silver eel escapement target.

5.

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of es-capement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had im-pacted the stock (Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.


i.


Proposed measures are presented as short-term and medium-term measures without a more specific explanation of what these correspond to. However, the target will be achieved 15-20 years after restocking measures are implemented.

ii.



iii.


Stocking of 500 000 glass eels in an area with no anthropogenic mortality is aimed for imme-diately . This is in addition to the current inland stocking for fishing.

iv.


The Finnish EMP is entirely dependent on stocking so implicitly the assumption of natural recruitment is zero.

v.

Likelihood/probability of achieving the target within the timeframe mentioned:

If enough glass eel can be bought then it is likely to achieve the target set out. However, the target set uses a method which deviates from the methods outlined in the regulation.

b.


N/A

6.



7.


a.


Accord ing to the EMP,

eel is a by-catch in coastal areas with little economic importance., The EMP calls for a 100% catch and release which is expected to be effective as most eel are caught alive. Because of the low economic importance the plan is expected to be effective.

b.


30 |

N/A

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary co-ordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:



An n ex 1

32 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS France


and as such

is not ICES





France has submitted 10 plans for ind ividual assessment. The plans from France have used a common approach and the valid ity of that approach is evaluated in the following. Issues in specific RBDs have not been included here.

1.


a.

General:

The French national plan acknowledges that some of the river basin d istricts are international and transboundary. However, due to time limitations the plans only includes French national territory. Transboundary coordination is planned for the next reporting round.

b. Special attention devoted to the Baltic Sea and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in the preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

N/A

2.


a.

Reliability of methods used (Is the model scientifically sound and is it supported with sufficient and reliable data), as referred to in Article 2(5) of the Regulation to calculate potential silver eel escapement (:

i.


Only preliminary estimates are provided . These estimates are not used to frame the French EMP, but are only presented for use in the 2012 reporting round when more data are available. However, a large amount of data on numbers of eel per area in various regions is provided as well as data on wetland eel habitats. The alternative methods (b and c) as described in Article 2(5) of the Regulation could have been used to make pristine escapement estimates using production per area by habitat type data from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands or Germany.

Considering France s

long cultural tradition for eel fishing and strong trad ition in fisheries biology

more historic eel production and density data was expected.

ii.


Only preliminary estimates are provided.

iii.


No estimates are provided

iv.


No estimates are provided.

b. Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of current and pristine silver eel escapement:

Only preliminary estimates are provided.

c. Coherency of estimates for shared river basins:



d. Compatibility of methods used for shared river basins:


3.

Restocking

a.


France will use 5-10% of its catch of glass eel for restocking in 2009/2010-2010/2011. This should be regarded as an adaptive process and the results will be evaluated in 2012. No forecast of the contribution is provided.

b. Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with respect to re-stocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migra-tion from the restocked area:

No restocking will take place in the Mediterranean river basins, because of the risk (not docu-mented) that restocked eel in these areas will not be able to migrate back to the Sargasso Sea. This as well as the other points mentioned in connection with restocking seems adequate as the place selected for restocking will secure that a substantial fraction of the restocked eel will escape as silver eel.

c.


The EMP includes a comprehensive account of the requirement to reserve 35% increasing to 60% of glass eel catches for restocking. Uncertainties about the fu ture operation of this market are also highlighted . Due to the historic importance of France as a glass eel supplying country and the high demand for glass eel to support EMP implementation across Europe, ensuring this system functions will be important to implementation of the Regulation as a whole.

4.


The EMP aims at reducing the anthropogenic mortality of eel by 30% during the first 3 years of the implementation. This is done mainly by introducing quotas on glass eel catches, and by closed fishing seasons for yellow and silver eel.

5.


a.


i.


No target is provided

ii.


France will reduce anthropogenic mortality by 30% during the first 3 years

and later evaluate the need for possible further measures. .

iii.


The main measures include: Introduction of quotas, closed seasons for yellow and silver eel, some restocking, restrictions in recreational fishing etc aiming at a gradual reduction in fishing mortality of 30% in 3 years on each eel stage.

34 |

iv.


Only a theoretical calculation is provided which is not directly related to the measures to be taken as these are specified (i.e. only for the first 3 years). The model will be improved over the coming two years.

v.

Likelihood/probability of achieving the target within the timeframe men-

tioned:

No target provided.

b. With two or more plans, achieving the 40% target for all or as national average:

No target provided.

6.


No issues identified with the plans presented for monitoring the fu ture development in the eel abundance and silver eel escapement.

7.


a.


There is only a plan for the first 3 years. This plan is appropriate for reaching the 3 year target of among other issues a reduction in fishing mortality of 30% by each eel stage. There are uncertainties around the market of glass eel

for restocking and how this is managed. Longer term EMPs needs to be developed.

Short-

and medium-term improvements of survival in eel of a similar magnitude as a reduction in fishing intensity to less than 15% of the present level is needed for reversing

the downwards decline in the eel stock. As the French EMP is not resulting in this level of improved survival of eel in the short and medium term the French plan will only be effective if other countries are compensating for this shortage.

b. Qualitative analysis for plans pertaining to a shared river basin:

Coordination with neighbouring countries is pending.

8.


Other countries EMPs are either dependent on restocking material of which France are the main suppliers or on a recovery of natural eel recruitment, to which France is also a key player having a (yet to be quantified) large share of the potential silver eel production.


Evaluat ion of MS Germ any

This evaluation is produced

by the ICES Secretariat as a review service

and as such

is

not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee.

Only issues which have been

identified as possibly causes for not achieving the objectives of

the regulation are

specifically mentioned.

The evaluation of the EMPs developed through written correspondence between the European Commission

and Germany. The main issue concerned how the German model for estimating pristine escapement where it may be argued that

the pre 1960s level is a better reference

period than the 1979-1994 period , as all ind icators available suggests that recruitment in the Baltic have declined since the 1950s. The estimate of present coastal production and especially the recruitment values used are not docu-mented. Both issues are still pending.

1


a.

General:

The same basic model has been used for all areas except the Eider and Schlei/Trave area due to lack of data and the dominance of coastal waters.

Neither of the methods mentioned above have been used in neighbouring countries and can therefore be d ifficult to compare. However the model is very transparent and each step in the estimates are relatively easy to extract so it would probably be easily compared with other similar models.

In the first reporting round, national plans have been submitted for transboundary RBDs; coordinated plans in relevant areas are expected in 2012.

b.


Baltic state EMPs need to be coordinated with Denmark and Sweden where Baltic silver eels are fished on their migration towards the Sargasso Sea. Germany is however also catching a small amount of silver eel from other Baltic countries. A larger amount of silver eel are likely to be coming from Germany and caught in Denmark and Swe-den.

2


a.


i.


Two critical issues have been identified with the model when used to estimate pris-tine escapement.

The first issue is the use of a glass-eel trap data as an absolute measure of upstream migration. It is implicitly assumed that all glass eel which enter the river with the trap will also enter the trap. It is questionable whether even a very well placed trap can accomplish absolute efficiency. Thus, the method applied gives an underestimate

36 |

of the pristine recruitment and given the way the model works this will result in an underestimation of the pristine silver eel escapement.

The second issue is that the model works by starting out with the recruitment and there are no observations on yellow eel or silver eel abundance used to calibrate the model in the calculations which follow. This means that the model is likely to diverge when the calculations are moving from the recruit stage to the silver eel stage. How-ever, apparently such data were not available to the German EMP developers.

Data that would be useful in this context include yellow eel and silver eel catches and abundance indices from e.g. electrofishing surveys

and from silver eel traps in rivers.

An indication of an underestimation is evident when the resultant estimates of pris-tine silver eel escapement per area are compared to Danish and Dutch figures, which are higher and based on well studied eel populations and habitats.

Comparisons with Polish estimates in the Oder RBD also suggest the German values are underestimates.

The pristine escapement estimates from coastal habitats could not be evaluated due to lack of details in the reports. The input values in the model seem problematic (see above).

The comments made below should be considered in the context of the general com-ments to the German model.

Eider

Coastal waters= 149 tonnes; Inland= 91 tonnes. Does not use the model. Data inputs are given in table 19 and 20. However, the method to estimate pristine escapement from the data is not ex-plained in sufficient detail. For instance, important figures like the values for fishing mortality are not justified . The 38% used for pro-portion of silver eel of the total stock is not explained . Although this method is not very transparent the values given may be ac-ceptable as they seem to be similar to values that can be obtained by calculations based on production per hectare, although on the low side for transitional and inland waters.

Elbe

1,381 tonnes based on the total European decline to 6.8% in 2006 of the 1950-1980 mean recruitment. If the habitat area times the Dan-ish production by ha is used instead the result is about 2,500 t. Thus, the presented values seem to be on the lower side.

Ems

406 tonnes. By far the largest area is the tidal Ems transitional area and this should preferably be treated as a separate unit. It was not clear whether stocking was done in this area or mainly in upstream areas.

Meuse

4 tonnes

seems to be a low

pristine silver eel production per ha (4.1 kg/ha)

Oder

195 tonnes -

seems to be a low pristine silver eel production per ha (2.4 kg/ha)

Rhine

252 tonnes -

seems to be a low pristine silver eel production per ha (4.2 kg/ha) especially when considering that only significant eel habitats are included (Table 5). In the 1930s there were just fewer


than 200 schokkers and they probably caught more eel than 252 t per year

catch data from these would be useful. Thus 252 t is

likely an underestimate.

Schlei/Trave

Coastal waters= 441 t; Inland= 200 t. Does not use the model. Data inputs are given in table 21 and 22. However, the method to esti-mate pristine escapement from the data is not explained in suffi-cient detail. For instance important figures like the values for fishing mortality are not justified . Although this method is not very transparent, the values given may be acceptable as they seem to be similar to (though slightly lower than) values that can be ob-tained by calculating based on production per hectare. For instance using the Danish production values of 50 kg/ha for rivers and 8 kg/ha for lakes gives around 260 t for inland waters. For coastal waters 2.5 kg/ha (as for Warnow/Peene coastal waters) would give 778 t.

Warnow/Peene

Coastal= 961 t; Inland= 73 t. The figures given within the EMP are d ifferent from the table on p.17 of the overview. The inland value corresponds to only 1.9 kg/ha. Compared to Schlei/Trave of about 9 kg/ha. If the same value is used here then inland= around 315t.

Weser

424 t (7.7 kg/ha) seems low compared to other comparable areas in neighbouring river basins.

The total value estimated by the model is 4,573 tonnes silver eel escapement per year in the pristine case. Using production per ha values from Denmark or the Nether-lands would have given at least double this amount. There is little reason to assume that most upstream river parts except those above 1000 m above sea level in the pris-tine situation would not have been fully occupied with eel. The German plan illus-trates this with several examples of old records of large shoals of glass eel migrating upstream in their rivers in the early 1900s. These amounts of glass eel are so large that alone a shoal of the sizes described probably could have been able to colonize an en-tire river system. There are similar examples from other countries.

i i .


The model when used to estimate current escapement, has the same problems as mentioned in the evaluation of pristine escapement above. Inefficient trap placement will underestimate recruitment in estimates of current escapement as well. However, most of the current German eel stock is based on stocking.

In addition, the values used for natural mortality are mainly from an area and time period prior to extensive infestation of A.crassus. Natural mortality factors are proba-bly higher today when the parasite is more widespread. Because of the way the model is structured, this will result in an overestimation of the current escapement.

An indication that recruitment is being underestimated can be obtained from a com-parison between number of eel restocked and current stock size and production. The stocking numbers given (p.17 in the General Germany text) are 7.4 million glass eel and 4.9 million advanced farmed eel. The bootlaces of 1.1 million can be d isregarded as these are local eel moved upstream and thus not

adding anything to the German eel population from outside Germany. In the theoretical case of no anthropogenic mortality this would give only 653 t of silver eel escapement (as a rule of thumb 1t

38 |

glass eel [0.33g] gives 100t silver eel escapement, and 1 t

[2-5g] advanced farm eel

gives 25t silver eel escapement in the case of zero anthropogenic mortality). Com-pared to the 2,550 t estimated current silver eel escapement by Germany plus the an-thropogenic and cormorant mortality of 1,590 t and the claim by Germany that this is

attributable essentially to the restocking , we have a major inconsistency or a fu ture large reduction in silver eel escapement, when the juvenile eel stocked in 2007 have grown up to silver eel stage. Either natural recruitment is, or rather has been in the past ~10 years, much higher than thought or stocking has been much higher in the past ~10 years than in 2007 (which could be checked if the German EMP had included a complete time series of stocking, which seems not to have been the case) or current escapement is grossly overestimated In any case, the current level of stocking will leave no room for anthropogenic mortality in the future.

The current escapement estimates from coastal habitats could not be evaluated and seems problematic (see above).The high eel abundance estimated might be due to stocking in the neighbouring river systems, if some of these eels migrate as yellow eels from the river systems to the coastal areas. If there was some direct measurement of yellow eel and silver eel in the rivers this would be able to validate the model es-timates of eel abundance in the rivers.


Eider

Coastal= 90 tonnes (60%); Inland=37 tonnes (41%). The estimates presented represent mean values for the period 1980 to present, thus it is not present values, as there probably have been a decreas-ing trend throughout the period. We therefore regard the pre-sented values as overestimates.

Elbe

425 tonnes (31%).

Ems

269 tonnes (66%) See comments above for pristine escapement es-timates. Furthermore, as it is stated in e.g. the Oder EMP Since in Germany eel are a product for which there is a strong demand and it is marketable at an economic

viable price, a constant fishing ef-fort in the past is to be expected . It is thus surprising that the fish-ing level is so low in Ems. These points further support the possibility of the current stock biomass being over-estimated.

Meuse

110 kg (3%) mainly based on assumptions and not actual meas-urements.

Oder

100 tonnes (51%) .

Rhine

181 tonnes (72%). In section 5.1 it is mentioned that there is a schokker monitoring time-series; why are the data not presented and used?

Schlei/Trave

Coastal=292 tonnes (66%); Inland= 66 tonnes (33%). These values seem too high. The calculations are not explained in the report but the table column headings in Tables 21 and 22 indicates that it represents mean values since 1980 while it should have been the


current year, i.e. 2007.

Warnow/Peene

Coastal= 802 tonnes (84%); Inland= 20 tonnes (28%). The value for coastal escapement seems very high and it is a mystery where the recruitment is coming from as there is no stocking in this area and the natural recruitment in the Baltic is very low currently and has been in the past. Actual current escapement plus catches, plus cormorant predation, is much higher than the reference pristine escapement (see Table 2.4.1).

Weser

239 tonnes (56%).

The total German current escapement

is estimated at 2,550 tonnes. However, as ind i-cated above this is regarded as an overestimate.

i i i .


The comments made below should be considered in the context of the general com-ments to the German model

Eider

Elbe

Not available.

Ems

Current fishing is around 25 t per year. Cormorant and turbine mortality are low so this can probably be set to extra 25 t escape-ment, i.e. in total 294 t.

Meuse

About 4 times current escapement estimate and thus relatively substantial.

Oder

Current fishing is about 30 t

so avoid ing this will probably give about the same increase in escapement

assuming that growth and cormorant plus turbine mortality on these eel will cancel out. Thus, about 130 t.

Rhine

Fishing is about 139 t -

so avoiding this will probably give about the same increase in escapement

assuming that growth and cor-morant plus turbine mortality on these eel will cancel out. Thus, about 320 t.

Schlei/Trave

Not available.

Warnow/Peene

Not available.

Weser

Current fishing is about 94 t

so avoid ing this will probably give about the same increase in escapement

assuming that growth and cormorant plus turbine mortality on these eel will cancel out. Thus, about 333 t.

iv.

Current potential escapement given

no anthropo-genic mortality at all:

40 |


Eider

Elbe

Average mortality caused by hydroelectric installations and cool-ing water intake points was calculated to be 24%. Which translates to 30% more silver eel biomass escapement if mortality from these factors could be reduced to 0 (p. 34).

Ems

Hydro-turbine mortality is only about 3 t per year and is roughly equivalent to a lost silver eel escapement. Thus the current poten-tial escapement can be estimated to about 297 t per year.

Meuse

Losses due to turbines are quite low around 10% of escaping silver eel (Table on p. 8)

Oder

Turbine mortality estimated to 2%. Thus, avoiding this will in-crease the escapement to about 133 t per year.

Rhine

Turbine mortality estimated to 7.1%. Thus, avoiding this will in-crease the escapement to about 531 t per year.

Schlei/Trave

338 t for coastal water and NA for inland waters. See comment above.

Warnow/Peene

Not available.

Weser

Turbine mortality estimated to 2.7%. Thus, avoiding this will in-crease the escapement by about 47 t to about 380 t per year.

b.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of cur-rent and pristine silver eel escapement:

The accuracy of RBDs using the model are assessed to be low and biased towards under-estimates. See comments above to the model.


Eider

Medium precision for the pristine escapement and low precision of current escapement due to the points mentioned above.

Elbe

Low; and for pristine escapement biased (an under-estimate).

Ems

Low; estimates mainly based on assumptions.

Meuse

Low; estimates mainly based on assumptions.

Oder

The pristine escapement is estimated at 195 t. The current escape-ment at about 133 t given no anthropogenic mortality. If the cor-


morant eel consumption of 50-60 t is added this results in almost the pristine escapement. This is surprising given the strong reduc-tion in natural eel recruitment and probably illustrates the prob-lems mentioned above in the evaluations of the estimates.

Rhine

Low.

Schlei/Trave

Not possible to assess but given the data presented probably low.

Warnow/Peene

Not possible to assess but given the data presented probably low.

Weser

Low.

c.


The German estimates of pristine silver eel escapement are generally lower than those of neighbouring countries and are considered under-estimates (see above). The estimates of current escapement are higher than in neighbouring countries and this is probably due to substantial restocking in Germany the past years.

d.


Other countries which share river basins with Germany do not use the German ap-proach. However, the German approach is generally very comparable with most other approaches because it is a transparent model and it gives absolute biomass es-timates.

3

Restocking

a.

Expected contribution of restocking measures to reaching the escape-ment target:

Restocking is the main tool for reaching the target. Fishing is only planned to be re-duced much less than the 85% as needed on the pan-European level, although no at-tempt is made to quantify it.

Restocking plans in Germany all assume that there will be sufficient stock and finan-cial support for stocking, although

it is recognized that price and availability could present problems.

Eider

No planned management measures.

Elbe

Restocking with 0.3 million bootlace and 9.0 million advanced farm eels until 40% escapement is reached. Probably too little restocking to reach the target especially if the target is set at 40% of 2500 t.

Ems

Already reaching the escapement target (66%). Escapement ex-pected to be reduced in fu ture years due to bad recruitment and low stocking in recent years, but no clear plan for increased

stock-ing.

Meuse

10 000 glass eels and 10 000 advanced farm eels to be restocked . Probably too little as the target value is probably too low.

Oder

Already reaching the escapement target (51%). The plan is to main-tain current stocking levels with 75 000 advanced farm eel and

42 |

a further 45 000 bootlaces are to be used for restocking in the com-ing years. (p . 23). Given that natural eel recruitment is very low currently and that the eel population in the area will be almost en-tirely based on stocking the

numbers planned for stocking will be

too low.

Rhine

Approximately 750,000 glass eels and 1.1 million advanced farm eels are to be restocked . Given that natural eel recruitment is very low currently and that the eel population in the area will be almost entirely based on stocking the numbers planned for stocking will be too low.

Schlei/Trave

Gradual increase by 50 kg per year from 1,000kg (glass eel equiva-lents/per year) in 2009 to 1,250kg (glass eel equivalents/per year) in 2014 and then maintained at this level until natural recruitment improves (p.40). No restocking in coastal areas planned.

Warnow/Peene

Current restocking in inland waters will continue with an increase in the restocking to about 1.0 million advanced farm eels and 0.1 million bootlaces. Here stocking is almost the only recruitment.

Weser

Present restocking (50,000 glass eel, 1,000,000 farmed eels, and 200, 000 bootlaces) is planned to be maintained . It is argued that this should be increased by the use of the EFF Regulation, but no spe-cific amount is given. Restocking is planned to be the main meas-ure, as natural recruitment is expected not to improve from the present low level (6.4% of pre 1980 level).

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with re-spect to restocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

The selection of areas for stocking are more targeted at fishing than conservation, be-cause the stocking is generally paid by the fishers.

Eider

No planned management measures.

Elbe

Established management measure. Established fishery supports restocking.

Ems

Established management measure. Restocking financed by fishing license holders and current stocking level is linked to this financ-ing.

Meuse

Restocking is planned to be concentrated in sections below HPS.

Oder

Restocking planned for all of the Eel river basin. Only self-contained waters are excluded (p.23-24). Mortality due to HPS low only 2%.

Rhine

Restocking financed by private funds makes it very d ifficult to influence the geographical d istribution of the restocking materials (p. 23). This means that stocking will be done at places where there


is fishing and high turbine mortality.

Schlei/Trave

Restocking with eel occurs only in inland lakes where natural as-cent has been prevented by water-regulating structures and in ar-eas where fishing is still conducted. Thus, high mortality expected.

Warnow/Peene

Restocking planned in all lakes larger than 40 hectares and which are linked to the Baltic. Close to 20 000 hectares. The areas will not be free from fishing.

Weser

In principle, all eel habitat waters of the Weser river system are to be included in the restocking measures, since these correspond to the natural waters for the growing stock . (p. 21).Thus many will die due to fishing, cormorant predation, and turbine mortality.

c.

Does the EMP include the requirement for reserving 35% increasing to 60% of eel less than 12 cm caught (live and dead glass eel), for stocking (Article

7, (1 &2)?

No fishing for eel less than 12 cm.

4


Eider

Attempted but approach problematic

see points mentioned above.

Elbe

Relative contribution seems adequate.

Ems

Not quantified, but stocking will be the main contributor.

Meuse


Oder


Rhine


Schlei/Trave


Warnow/Peene

Not quantified, but stocking will be the main contributor for inland waters. For coastal waters there will be a small reduction in fishing mortality

far less than the 85% needed according to e.g. Åström and Dekker. As the coastal areas are the main eel area in this RBD, Germany will be dependent on other countries/areas doing more to protect the eel stock.

Weser

Not quantified, but clearly stocking will be the main contributor.

5

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of

44 |

escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock (Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.


i.


This table presents information as presented by the German EMPs. However, because of the issues raised in this evaluation these time schedules and self-assessed compli-ance may not be accurate.

Eider

Already compliant.

Elbe

Goal attainment forecasted in ~ 2030 (Fig. 4.1.9.1).

Ems

Already compliant, but forecasted to fall below and no clear plan for rectifying that. This has to be implemented now in order to prevent the escapement falling below the target in the coming years.

Meuse

Goal attainment forecasted after 2022 (1480 kg), but target proba-bly too low.

Oder

Already compliant (51%). But likely to fall below the assessed tar-get in the coming years due to low natural recruitment.

Rhine

Already compliant (68%). But likely to fall below the assessed tar-get in the coming years due to low natural recruitment

Schlei/Trave

Inland water failing to meet escapement objective but coastal and inland waters together are presented as exceeding the target by 100 tonnes (p.25). These values may not be accurate (see above) and it is likely that the target will not be met in the coming years.

Warnow/Peene

Inland water failing to meet escapement objective and the 40% tar-get is forecasted to be reached first in 2045. Coastal waters are claimed to already be achieving compliance and to do so in the fu ture as well, which as stated above is d ifficult to understand as there is no stocking and almost no natural recruitment.

Weser

Already compliant (56%). But model projects if 2007 inputs are maintained, Weser could fall below 40% by 2011. No clear plan for rectifying that. More restocking or a substantial reduction anthro-pogenic mortality is needed.

i i .


Eider

See comment above.

Elbe

Seems adequate except for comments made above.

Ems

See above.


Meuse

All measures implemented the first few years.

Oder

Closure of existing stationary silver eel traps.

Rhine

-

Schlei/Trave

Gradually increased stocking.

Warnow/Peene

Uncertainty about when the full stocking will be achieved.

Weser

increasing the stocking and , reducing turbine mortality e.g. by trap & truck are mentioned, but not further specified.

iii.


Eider

Increase minimum landing size from 35cm to 45cm in inland and coastal waters.

Elbe

Increase minimum landing size to 45cm & 50cm; maintain current level of restocking. Measures will be implemented in the next 5 years. Measures being implemented in the first year are not speci-fied.

Ems

Increase minimum landing size to 45cm & 50cm; maintaining cur-rent level of restocking.

Meuse

Increase in minimum landing size to 50cm; systematic restocking provided prices remain stable.

Oder

Continued restocking; increase minimum size to 50cm.

Rhine

Increase in minimum landing size to 50cm; closed fishing seasons (vary by area but in the main stem from 1 October to 1 March to protect silver eel); maintaining current restocking level; continuing Trap & transport at the Moselle power station.

Schlei/Trave

Increase in minimum landing size to 45cm (in both inland and coastal waters); effort reduction in coastal waters through site re-strictions on pound nets.

Warnow/Peene

Increase minimum landing size to 50cm in inland and coastal wa-ters; repeal exemption for silver eels; half-year ban on eel fishing outside 3 nautical miles (Jan 1 to June 30); ban on eel fishing by hand-lining from Dec 1 to Feb 28; reduction of successful breeding in cormorant colonies. All of these measures will benefit the stocks, but the overall effect is not expected to large.

Weser

Increase in minimum landing size to 45 or 50 cm; maintaining the current scale of restocking. The plan mentions urgent action re-lated to managing other sources of mortality (turbines and cormo-rants) but makes no clear commitment to implementing actions for

46 |

reductions.

iv.


Eider

No recruitment assumptions made.

Elbe

Recruitment assumption made in

the stock model assessment is constant low natural upstream migration up to 2016, subse-

quently gradual increase proportional to the previous decline as a result of the increase in silver eel escapement (p. 34).

Ems

Recruitment expected to decrease but no clear plan compensating for that.

Meuse

Recruitment expected to stay very low

Oder

Recruitment expected to be low according to model, but accord ing to actions taken and planned expected to increase to the level sup-porting (together with stocking) the

present eel stocks.

Rhine

Upstream migration rate uses data from the Elbe and Den Oever to estimate a rate of 3 ascending eels per hectare (2.5%). (p.11).

Schlei/Trave

Impossible to evaluate from the material presented.

Warnow/Peene

Difficult to extract from the EMP exactly what is expected but it is stated in sec. 4.3 that 11 years from now natural recruitment will increase again. To what extent and why is not stated.

Weser

Recruitment expected to stay very low.

v.

Likelihood/probability of achieving

the target within the timeframe mentioned:

Eider

We question the current escapement estimate and thus the likeli-hood for achieving the target is low.

Elbe

Not likely.

Ems

Likely to fall below the target in the coming years. Furthermore, new installations of hydropower will increase substantially the turbine mortality.

Meuse

Not likely because fishing mortality is very high even if reduced by 50% (see Table 8, p. 8).

Oder

Not likely as natural recruitment has implicitly been over-estimated and stocking planned too low.


Rhine

Not likely

natural recruitment expected to be low and stocking

planned is too low.

Schlei/Trave

Not likely

natural recruitment expected to be low and stocking

planned is too low.

Warnow/Peene

Seems adequate for the

inland waters except for the issue of the target being too low. For the coastal waters it is not likely to be above the target in the coming years.

Weser

Plan not specific enough to evaluate this.

The probability that Germany will reach the targets is dependent on a few factors including availability and price of supply of glass eels; and the issue that anthropo-genic mortality has not been sufficiently reduced . Even if anthropogenic mortality was reduced to zero, the amount of restocking planned will not be enough to reach the target silver eel escapement (based on the rule of thumb, see above).

b.


The German plan consists

of 9 plans. As a national average Germany report that they are currently achieving 56% silver eel escapement as compared to the reference con-dition. However, as stated above the basic estimates of both pristine escapement and current escapement have been questioned.

6

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful imple-mentation of the plan(s);

a.


Eider

No current monitoring exists. Monitoring for all life stages is planned to be implemented in 2010-2011.

Studies on other mortal-ity factors are also planned . The plan calls upon the international scientific community to develop methods for coastal waters.

Elbe

A plan to implement extended monitoring at all life stages in sup-port of strengthening the stock model is described.

Ems

A more d irect monitoring of the silver eel escapement would be useful, electrofishing could also be considered.

Meuse

Adequate.

Oder

Expresses the need for further monitoring as well as changes to current monitoring programs for both ascending eels and escape-ment (p.26).

Rhine

Refers to the National overview. Current monitoring will continue. New ones planned.

Schlei/Trave

A research

program aimed at collecting necessary data for verify-ing the estimates used to assess compliance is described . The pro-gram will in 2008/2009 collect data on all life stages and further

48 |

investigations will aid in estimating rates of mortality from natural and anthropogenic sources. Permanent monitoring programs will be based on the outcome of this research project.

Warnow/Peene

Plans to expand and maintain current monitoring seem adequate to fill identified data gaps in the stock model. There are some in-teresting plans for monitoring in the coastal areas, but the 3 catching systems are not specified .

Weser

Monitoring needs are d iscussed with some specific possibilities for monitoring descending eels. However, it is more like an identified need then

a commitment to monitor (p.26).

7


a.


The purchase of glass eels from outside the catchment, to add to the natural recruit-ment into a river basin with an established fishery, and/or other sources of unmiti-gated anthropogenic or natural mortality, may not be the most efficient use of scarce resources of glass eel if the primary aim of stocking is to support conservation.

Eider

Either substantial stocking or much more severe reduction in an-thropogenic mortality is needed.

Elbe

Seems unrealistic to expect to reach the target.

Ems

No firm plans presented to prevent the eel abundance from being below the target in the coming years.

Meuse

Fishing needs to be reduced more and stocking increased . Coordi-nation with the Netherlands needed. If any anthropogenic mortal-ity in the Netherlands of the silver eel escaping from the German Meuse then Germany needs to further improve its measures.

Oder

The plan will not be able to prevent the eel abundance from falling below the target in the coming years.

Rhine

The plan will not be able to prevent the eel abundance from falling below the target in the coming years. Furthermore, the target for the German escapement needs to be higher than 40% due to ex-pected mortality in the Netherlands.

Schlei/Trave

The plan will not be able to prevent the eel abundance from falling below the target in the coming years.

Warnow/Peene

The plan will not be able to prevent the eel abundance from falling below the target in the coming years, especially in the coastal wa-ters.


Weser

The plan will not be able to prevent the eel abundance from falling below the target in the coming years, unless the planned quantity of stocking is increased.

Germany will reduce anthropogenic mortality from fishing and other sources. The reduction planned is far below the needed 85% as estimated by Åström and Dekker. Germany seems to be well aware of this and they will in addition conduct substantial stocking with juvenile eel. The amounts of stocking mentioned are however far from enough even in case of zero anthropogenic mortality. The German EMP states that this development will be followed closely and increase the stocking to the needed extent. We envisage that this will be needed to a substantial degree.

To make the model more robust the inclusion of d irect monitoring of yellow eel abundance or silver eel escapement would be helpful. This would allow the estimates of pristine, current, and near fu ture escapement to be reconsidered . Alternatively, a production by area based approach could be considered.

The time-series of catch estimates presented in Table 1 (p. 7 of the German overview) only presents data from 1995-2007. A longer time series would have been useful for evaluating the potential production.

Very few direct measurements of yellow eel or silver eel abundance seem to be avail-able. The model results used are based mainly on assumptions and contribute to un-certainty about the current amount of eel in Germany.

b.


The German plan still needs to be coordinated with neighbouring countries.

8

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters fal-ling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of trans-boundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

Germany could be fishing silver eels escaping from other Baltic countries, although this is happening to a far lesser degree than in Denmark and Sweden.

50 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Lat via


and as such

is not ICES





1


a.

General:

No estimates are made for shared river basins, since these are not accessible to eels (Latvian EMP, p. 12). Coordination plans with Lithuania and Estonia are required.

b.


The Latvian EMP mentions that 10% of tagged eels were caught near Denmark the same year of release (Latvian EMP, p. 40). Baltic state EMPs need to be coordinated with Denmark and Sweden where Baltic silver eels are fished on their migration towards the Sargasso Sea.

2


a.


i.


The Latvian plan has been unable to make calculations using the methods described in Article 2(5) due to a lack of data (Latvian EMP, p. 32). The 60 tonnes mentioned on p.47 (Latvian EMP) in relation to a glass eel quantity for stocking seems an appropriate candidate value for the 40% silver eel escapement target, based on the historic catches of 1920s-1930s of 100-130 tonnes in coastal areas. A small but unknown amount of inland catches is not included in these historic values.

i i .


This value was not given d irectly. However, based on the values related to current catch in coastal waters and accessible inland waters, it can be assumed that this would be quite low, a few tonnes per year.

i i i .


This value was not easily deducted from the EMP.

iv .

Current potential escapement given no anthropogenic mortality:


b.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of current and pris-tine silver eel escapement:

An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but based on the data presented the accu-racy of estimates has been assessed as low.

c.


N/A.


d.


N/A.

3

Restocking

a.


The plan recommends the restocking of 2.7 million glass eels (at 100 glass eels/ha). This will lead to a silver eel escapement of 60 tonnes if the stocking is conducted in places where there is no fishing and free migration routes to the sea which they state as an option. If stocking in rivers and lakes

with commercial fishing is to continue this must be in addition to the 2.7 mil-lion glass eel figure.

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with respect to re-stocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning mi-gration from the restocked area:

Current restocking is aimed at supporting the fishery and occurs only in inland waters where silver eel escapement to the sea is not possible. Restocking is presented as a possible option for recovery of the eel population though not as a definitively planned measure but as a rec-ommendation (See p.61, Latvian EMP). Restocking for this purpose would then be aimed at areas: without obstacles to migration; free from commercial fishing; restricted angling; mod-erate or better water quality; and the concentration of hazardous substances below specified limits (Latvian EMP, p. 44-45).

c.


There is no glass eel fishery in Latvia. Eels recruit to Latvia in the yellow-eel stage.

4


Restocking will contribute 60 tonnes to silver eel escapement.

5


a.


i.


The 60 tonnes objective is reported to be reached after 20 years.

i i .


The restocking will from 2010 amount to 2.7 million glass eel and continue annually.

i i i .


Measures to be implemented in Latvia in 2009 can be

summarized as: Restocking plans in-cluding best practices; compile a list of anthropogenic obstacles; prepare and plan a silver eel transportation project; improved monitoring. Stocking will begin in 2010.

iv .


Natural recruitment only plays a minor role in shaping the current Latvian eel population as the plan is based almost entirely on stocking and not natural recruitment.

52 |

v.


If the plan is able to achieve the stocking material presented above, then the plan is likely to achieve the target within the timeframe mentioned.

b.


N/A.

6


Eel tagging and monitoring and the development of capacity for experts to age eel samples are d iscussed as could be . Existing monitoring is to be enhanced with d irect eel surveys. Evaluation of yellow eel density in Latvian rivers is described as necessary (Latvian EMP, p. 49).

7


a.


Latvia does not intend to restrict fishing. However, the 60 tonnes silver eel escapement result-ing from stocking of 2.7 million glass eel is dependent on no anthropogenic mortality. Be-cause eel fishing in the coastal and accessible inland waters consists mainly of by-catch in other fisheries and because eel are alive when caught it would seem prudent to require fish-ermen to release all caught eel. Otherwise increased stocking will be required.


b.


This is not a major issue for Latvia. However, some minor shared river basins with Lithuania and Estonia need to be coordinated.

8




Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Li t huania


and as such

is not ICES





1.

Compatibility/consistency of methods used to estimate biomass in shared river ba-sins;

a.

General:

Coordination with Russia regard ing the Curonian Lagoon should be further developed . Co-ordination with Latvia and Estonia is an activity planned for 2012. Other Shared RBDs are not considered important eel habitat.

b.



2.


a.


i.


The 87 tonnes listed represents only the Lithuanian part of the Curonian Lagoon and does not include inland waters. The Lithuanian EMP states that catches in inland waters have been extremely poor in the past (Lithuanian EMP, p. 36). Lithuania assumes that its inland wa-ters do not contribute at all to pristine escapement. 87 tonnes seems to be an underestimate since catches by Lithuania in the Curonian Lagoon were about 150 tonnes (Lithuanian EMP, Figure 4.4.2.5, p .29) per year in the 1950s and 60s before stocking was an established practice. In addition, catch from inland waters in the 1930s (figure 4.4.2.3) was around 12 tonnes per year before stocking began thus an annual catch in Lithuania of 162 tonnes could be a basis for a rough calculation of the pristine escapement of 216 tonnes (based on the relationship between escapement and catch as given in the Lithuanian EMP table 5.1.1.).

ii.


5 tonnes is the reported current escapement value. Although the calculations used to arrive at this figure as presented in the Annex (p.87-90) is not specified to the extent a proper evalua-tion is possible, the value seems however to be on an appropriate level.

iii.



iv.



b.


54 |

Except for the potential bias in the estimates (described above), based on the data presented in the plan a medium level of accuracy is assigned to the escapement estimates.

c.


The estimates provided are appropriate for the river basins shared with Latvia, while data from Russia are lacking.

d.


Future coordination efforts with Latvia and Russia will be required.

3.

Restocking

a.


If the plan is able to meet the restocking targets set out in section 5.2 (Lithuanian EMP, p. 37), the target escapement will be exceeded in one eel generation (10-20 years).

Lithuania s intention to stock up to 30

000ha or up to 3 million glass eels annually is expected to contribute 54 tonnes of silver eels (without closing fisheries) in one eel generation (Lithua-nian EMP, p.50). It is not clear why the EMP aims to produce 54 tonnes of Silver eel when their target

is 35 tonnes (Table 5.1.1.). As stated above the target should be 86 tonnes (40% of 216 tonnes see above) and therefore substantially more than 3 million glass eels will be re-quired annually. It was not clear how the quantity of glass eel stated in Table 5.2.1 of 2.4 + 1.5 + 4.2 = 8.1 million glass eels needed for stocking related to the management plan.

b.


The Lithuanian EMP plans to identify specific water bodies for restocking in 2010. Priority stocking areas will be identified accord ing to a stated stocking protocol (Lithuanian EMP, p. 40).

c.


There is no glass eel fishery in Lithuania. Eels recruit to Lithuania in the yellow-eel stage.

4.


Restocking is the primary measure which will be used for attaining the escapement target. Other measures such as restrictions to fishing

season and plans to reduce effort are men-tioned but not d iscussed in detail. Improvements in habitat and turbine mortality reduction are mentioned but not discussed in detail.

5.

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock (Regu-lation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.


i.



One eel generation (10-20 years) will be required for planned stocking measures to take effect. However, the target could be reached in a shorter time scale if additional measures such as reduced fishing or additional stocking were implemented.

ii.



iii.


In 2009 the Lithuanian EMP plans to: implement a ban on a specialized eel fishery with long-lines; further reductions and changes to the fishing season. Stocking will begin in 2010.

iv.


Natural recruitment only plays a minor role in shaping the current Lithuanian eel population as the plan is based almost entirely on stocking and not natural recruitment.

v.


If the plan is able to achieve the stocking material presented above, then the plan is likely to achieve the target within the timeframe mentioned.

b.


N/A

6.


The Lithuanian EMP outlines plans to fill data gaps for more reliable assessment and moni-toring of the eel population through new surveys and reporting rules to be planned in 2009 and launched in 2010 (Lithuanian EMP, p. 47). This monitoring plan appears adequate.

7.


a.

Qualitative analysis of possible effectiveness

of the (each) plan as a whole:

If the stocking targets (presented above) can be met (dependant on price and availability) then the plan should be effective. However, restrictions on fishing need to be more specific to ensure fishing on stocked eels does not cancel out stockings contribution to the escapement target.


b.


This is only a major issue in relation to Russia for which plans are not available.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared

river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:


56 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Lux em bourg


and as such

is not ICES





Luxembourg has two RBDS:

The Meuse RBD has only a small area in Luxembourg (51 km2) and the EMP reports that this area no longer contains eels. The EMP focuses on the Sûre in the Rhine river basin.

1


a.

General:

The focus of the Luxembourg EMP is on the

Sûre river basin which is shared mainly with Germany and the Netherlands.

b.


N/A

2


a.

Reliability of methods used (is the model scientifically sound and is it supported with sufficient and reliable data), as referred to in Article 2(5) of the Regulation to calculate potential silver eel escapement:

i.


Luxembourg does not attempt to make an estimate of pristine escapement. Habitat based cal-culations could have been used to make estimates for this EMP. In principle, inland countries such as Luxembourg and Czech Republic could estimate the pristine escapement. Based on this estimate they could and maybe should agree with the downstream countries that com-pensatory stocking or other measures should be done in these "downstream" countries. In that way it would be important that they try to estimate pristine escapement. Clearly pre 1980s data are not appropriate as they represent times when barriers were established and hindered upstream migration. The fact that both Luxembourg and Czech republic EMPs re-port historic periods with plenty of eel found in almost (both) the entire country and only small areas where natural barriers that hindered colonization, were lacking eel, means that production per hectare would be appropriate, using e.g. Dutch, German, French, and Polish data.

Generally, it is acceptable that some countries use pre-1980 data and the basic principle is that pre-1980 recruitment was relatively stable so in principle the total stock was able to cope without contributions from the Luxembourg and Czech Republic areas until 1980. But it is only acceptable if

it is likely that this represents a real pristine situation. This is not likely for Luxembourg and Czech Republic due to the extensive amounts of barriers in the downstream river areas.

Although Luxembourg does not make any estimates of pristine or attempt to set a target level of escapement, in practice efforts in Luxembourg are unlikely to help the eel stocks recovery because they are so high up the river system that silver eel migration will be lost downstream due to hydropower turbine mortality, fishing etc.


i i .


Current escapement of silver eel from the territory of Luxembourg in the Sûre river basin is dependent on the efficiency of the trap and transport operation at the Rosport Power Station.

i i i .

Current potential escapement

given no fishing:

There are no commercial fishing activities in Luxembourg.

iv .


Current potential escapement in the Sûre river basin is estimated at 2000 eels or 1.5 tonnes per year (Luxembourg EMP, p.3).

b.


Estimates are not made.

c.



d.



3

Restocking

a.


Restocking is not a planned activity in Luxembourg. The upstream location of this country combined with the existence of significant downstream migration barriers make stocking a very low-priority in this area until better migration conditions are implemented.

b.


N/A

c.


There is no glass eel fishery in Luxembourg.

4


Trap and transport of migrating silver eels past the Rosport hydropower station are reported to be 100% protection of silver eels from turbine mortality in that particular installation.

5


a.


i.


No estimates and no timeframe are reported.

58 |

i i .


No estimates and no timeframe are reported.

i i i .


No new measures will be implemented. The trap and transport that has operated since 2004 will continue.

iv .


Natural recruitment to Luxembourg is assumed to be zero. Eels present are traced to aquacul-ture production stocking in Germany.

v.


N/A

b.


N/A

6


a.


No targets have been set and no additional measures are to be implemented . However, the existing trap and transport operation is a source of reliable data that enables efficient moni-toring.

7


a.

Qualitative analysis of possible

effectiveness of the (each) plan as a whole:

Coordination with Germany and the Netherlands is very important to this plan. The plan consists only of the continuation of the trap and transport operation above Rosport Dam. This plan is adequate due to the inland and up-river location of Luxembourg, as d iscussed above; additional efforts are unlikely to contribute significantly to eel stocks, until improved migra-tion downstream is secured.

b.


See above.

8




Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Nether lands


and as such

is not ICES





The evaluation presented below refers to the second

version of the Dutch EMP and after re-ceiving additional data and analysis on stocking, effect of measures, recovery time and

Third opinion on

the target.

1.


a.

General:

Four river basins extending beyond national boundaries are recognized by the plan: the river Ems basin shared with Germany; the River Rhine shared with Germany, Luxembourg, Swit-zerland, France, Austria, and Liechtenstein; the river Meuse basin covers Belgium, Luxem-bourg, France, and Germany; the river Scheld t basin shared with Belgium and France. The existing international river commissions with competence for this area have a long history of coord ination on water quality issues while coord ination on fisheries management is in the formative stages. For this reason the Dutch have submitted one national plan.

b.


Not an issue in this area.

2.


a.


Estimation of targets for silver eel migration is based on yields and the available production area (Dutch EMP, p. 43). The EMP reports of an internal Dutch debate on the reliability of existing data and suitability of method applied.

i.


Two methods provide an estimate of 10 000-15 000 tonnes independently of each other. This translates into a target of 4,000-6,000 tonnes. A Third opinion estimate gives a target value of 2,600-8,100 tonnes (and by implication a total pristine escapement of 6,500-20,250 tonnes) without considering density dependent factors. The Third opinion states that the target is most probably lower than 4,000-6,000 tonnes if density dependent effects and carrying capac-ity are taken into account. The Dutch plan does not conclude and points to an estimate that is the target for the Dutch plan. The mean of the first interval is 12,500 and the other is 13,375 tonnes, for the following calculations a pristine escapement of 13,000 tonnes is used.

ii.


Current escapement is reported to be 400 tonnes of silver eel. Of this total, 200 tonnes is esti-mated to be originating from neighbouring countries (primarily produced from the Rhine RBD) and 200 tonnes is attributed to eels originating from the Netherlands.

iii.


60 |

The catch of silver eels in the commercial and recreational fishery was 1120 tonnes for 2004. The increase in potential escapement with no fishing is this amount. This calculation ignores subsequent mortality because the fishery takes place just before the silver eel reach the sea. The total estimate would be 1,320 tonnes of silver eel escapement.

iv.


To estimate potential escapement without anthropogenic mortality 61-167 tonnes (Table 2.4.1) must be added to the current potential escapement given no fishing, for mortalities from hy-dropower and water pump stations, plus an unknown fraction of mortality related to barri-ers. This will result in a 1381-1487 tonnes plus an unknown fraction due to barriers.

b.


Based on the data provided, has been assigned a medium level of accuracy.

c.


Estimates of pristine escapement are higher than comparable ones made by Belgium. France does not provide estimates.

d.


The Dutch method is similar to the Belgium method . Germany uses a d ifferent yet transpar-ent method which should allow comparability. France does not provide estimates.

3.

Restocking

a.


The plan is to stock with at most 1000-1600 kg of glass eels and that is estimated to result in 100 tonnes of silver eel escapement in 2027 (p.24).

b.


Specific geographical areas for release have not yet been identified . However, it is apparent from the EMP that there will be suitable areas for restocking measures. An independent stakeholder organization, Future for Eel

will coordinate restocking efforts.

c.


The Netherlands does not have a commercial catch of glass eel.

4.


The plan quantifies silver eel escapement related to each proposed measure on p. 33 (Dutch EMP) and in Tables 3-2 to

3-4 in Klein Breteler (2009, Eel Management Plan The Netherlands. Supplement: ICES Comments). The values based on analysis by Klein Breteler (2008) are fo-cusing on individual measures implemented and the amount of survivors. It is assumed that they are not dying due to other causes and the aim of the calculations is only to ind icate the relative effectiveness of each measure against the others. Improvements of survival at pump-ing stations, fishing free zones and angling and recreational fishing are the most important tools in the medium to long term.


5.


There is no overall effect given for the impacts of proposed measures on silver eel escapement in the short, medium, and long term. Only the effects by each of the measures, assuming

that

any eel surviving due to a measure is not exposed to other anthropogenic mortality, are pre-sented. The presented effects are useful for comparison of measures.

a.


i.


The plan estimates that 5-6 eel generations (assumed to be 15 years each) are required to ob-tain the target. This estimate is obtained by adding the contribution of each measure. As indi-cated above this overestimates the combined effects because many of the survivors from each measure subsequently will be exposed to additional mortality (anthropogenic or from other causes).

ii.


The plan provides intermediate values. However, these values are also subject to the same bias of ignoring subsequent mortality as stated above.

iii.


Measures planned for the first year of implementation (2009) include: Mitigation of impacts from migration past barriers and hydroelectric stations including transport and release of sil-ver eels. Restrictions on the fishery include fishery-free zones, measures to limit impacts from angling in both marine and inland waters, and restocking.

iv.


The expected recruitment is that from Åström and Dekker (2007) with a total stop of fishing.

v.


The Dutch plan of achieving the target will depend on a recovery of the natural recruitment to the pre-1980 level. If all other countries contribute to this recovery on the same level as the Netherlands this is unlikely to be achieved.

b.


N/A

6.


Research began in 2008 on the development of an eel monitoring program.

7.


a.


The Dutch EMP is based on recruitment recovery in the long term to the pre-1980 level. The likelihood of such a recovery is dependent on the combined impacts of measures taken in response to the eel Regulation at the pan-European scale.

62 |

Short-

and medium-term improvements of survival in eel of a similar magnitude as a reduc-

tion in fishing intensity to less than 15% of the present level is needed for reversing the downwards decline in the eel stock (Åström and Dekker, 2007). The Dutch EMP is not result-ing in this level of improved survival of eel in the short and medium term.

Alternatively1, if the aim is to use stocking to reach the target and be independent of natural recruitment, restocking could be increased to about 40 times the planned restocking, i.e. 40-64 tonnes of glass eel (0.3 g). Taking into account the mortality in the process of catch and trans-port, this corresponds to a catch of glass eel of 80

130 tonnes. The total catch of glass eel in 2008 was about 40 tonnes.

b.


The plans of shared basins are yet to be received at ICES.

8.


The plans of shared basins are yet to be received at ICES.

1

*This should not be viewed as a recommendation/endorsement to necessarily rely on stocking to reach targets but is

one possibility and is part of the larger evaluation of EMPs where the intention is to sum the possible need for com-parison with the available supply.


Annex 1 .

Copenhagen 9/7-2009

Consideration of the Third Opinion / Eijsackers commission report NL EMP.

The main points in the Third Opinion or Eijsackers commission report are (quoting from the Conclusions in that report):

The models used by IMARES and VIVION for their target scenarios

are generally accepted methods and in line with the eel Regulation of the EU. They were ap-

plied correctly but less suitable for the calculation of a natural reference population if they are

based on unfished populations

Neither method took sufficient account of factors that played a role before 1980 like

Density related mortality and growth (IMARES), and

Eutrophication and cormorant predation (VIVION)

If these had these factors been taken into account, target scenario numbers would have been lower.

Regarding the first bullet point ICES WGEEL (see: EG WGEEL ICES CM 2008/ACOM:15 - http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/ViewWorkingGroup.aspx?ID=75

), found that generally the methods used by IMARES and VIVION are appropriate for this specific purpose.

The report does not identify why these four effects were singled out- they are probably considered to be the most important- as other factors like wetlands and predators on eel predators (i.e. so-called second order effects) have also changed. It could also be speculated that the fishery has changed in response to the change in catches and populations.

The difference in opinion between the Eijsacker Commission findings and the original plan is rather on the range within which the target should be sought instead of on the target as such.

To illustrate this, we focus on the scenario analysis presented in Fig. 1 in the Third Opinion report:

http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/ViewWorkingGroup.aspx?ID=75

64 |

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

F

Figure. 1. Silver eel migration is indicated in green lines harvested brown eel in red as function of fisheries mortality F. The black lines give the sum of migration and harvest. Calculations are based on the Committee s simple model which takes account of the density related natural mortality of the smallest and unfished year classes. The lower the carrying capacity, the higher mortality rates here. The results given are based on 4 assumed carrying capacity scenarios: (1) in which carrying capacity is limit-less; 2) in which carrying capacity is 50 kg/ha; 3) in which carrying capacity is 25kg/ha; (4) in which carrying capacity is 12.5 kg/ha.

The carrying capacity values used are all, except of course option 1), on the low side considering studies mainly in other countries than the Netherlands. In Denmark for instance, direct measurements of silver eel escapement have shown values in excess of 50kg/ha meaning that the standing stock biomass carrying ca-pacity must at least be that high and probably significantly higher. Tesch (Tesch F. W. The Eel. (2003) 3rd edn. Blackwell, London. 416) gives several examples of over 100 kg/ha standing stock biomass of eel. Tesch also lists biomasses of New Zealand eels, two very similar species to the European eel. These are interesting because they are closer to the pristine situation due to quite undisturbed rivers and lakes and little fishery. These values are several factors higher than 100 kg/ha so there seem to be little reason to sus-pect that from an ecosystem point of view there should be problems with high biomass values and thus high carrying capacity.

Thus, for Dutch waters, which are to be counted as well suited for eel, carrying capacity based on the above cited studies are probably higher than the scenario 2)-4) shown in the Fig. 1. and could be well above 100 kg/ha. If we extrapolate from the plot in Fig.1 with carrying capacity of 100-200kg/ha, escapement is higher than the catch. Thus, the method by VIVION is probably rather an underestimate than an overesti-mate, because it is unlikely that fishing in the past was at Fmax and that all catch was reported, particularly considering the importance of recreational fishing. Estimates of fishing mortality in the Ijsselmeer fishery are very high (F~1, WGEEL 2001).


Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Poland

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possibly causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are specifically men-tioned.

The Polish EMP

was briefly reviewed for a second time following edits to the plan.

1.


a.

General:

Poland and Germany each prepared a plan for their respective parts of the Oder River Basin; a joint plan will be developed in three years time. The Polish part of the Nemen RBD has been included within the Vistula EMP. No coord ination agreements were possible with Russia, Ukraine, or Belarus. A minor issue until the migration routes in the Oder River improve is coordination with Czech Republic

b.

Special attention devoted to the Baltic Sea and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the

context of transboundary coordination as specified in the preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:


2.


a.


i.


Oder EMU estimate of pristine silver eel escapement is 2522 000 individuals;

Vistula EMU estimate of pristine silver eel escapement is 2102 000 individuals.

Although calculations were not presented (Appendix 1 of the Polish EMP) to the level where it was possible to reproduce them in all details, the data results and conclusions described in the EMP are plausible.

ii.


Oder EMU estimate of current escapement is 216 000 individuals;

Vistula EMU estimate of current escapement is 208 000 individuals.

These values include a correction for turbine mortality. It is not clear from the EMP if fishing mortality (including that in transitional and coastal areas) is included in the values or the val-ues represent the hypothetical escapement given no fishing.

iii.



iv.


66 |

This value was not easily deducted

from the EMP.

Oder EMU 308 000 individuals;

Vistula EMU 371 000 individuals.

As stated above, it was not clear if these values reflect a situation with or without fishing.

b.


An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , based on the data presented in the plan a medium level of accuracy is assigned to the values provided . The main reservation with the values relates to the issue (d iscussed above) if fishing is or is not included in the escapement estimates.

c.


Polish estimates are higher than German values. As d iscussed in the evaluation of the Ger-man EMP

German values may be underestimated.

d.


3.

Restocking

a.


To reach the target escapement in the timeframe described the management plan recom-mends annual stocking of 6 million glass eels in the Oder RBD and 7 million in the Vistu la RBD (Polish EMP, p. 45). 4.33 tonnes of glass eel (0.33g) would be required . If sourced from a trawl fishery (e.g. from France) including a mortality of 50% this implies a total of 8.66 tonnes caught.

b.


The Polish EMP notes that current restocking occurs in both flowing and standing waters. 38% of the stocking material will be stocked in areas where fishing activities occur. This is a continuation of current stocking practice to enhance fishing; the rest of the stocking material will be used in waters free from obstacles but still exposed to fishing (Polish EMP, p. 38).

c.


There is no natural recruitment of glass eel in Poland.

4.


Section 10 of the EMP outlines the management measure and associated timescales for each measure towards achieving the 40% escapement target. (Polish EMP, p. 45).

Restocking with 13 million glass eel; reducing fishing mortality by 25%;

Improving ease of passage of migration routes in the Oder RBD from the present 70% of po-tential escapement to 90% to 2019; and in the Vistula RBD from 56% to 90% in 2019.


5.


a.


i.


The EMU Oder is expected to achieve the 40% escapement objective in 2048;

The EMU Vistula is expected to achieve the 40% escapement objective in 2066. (Polish EMP, p. 49).

ii.


Most measures will be implemented in the first two years of the regulation. Only measures to improve barriers for migration will be gradually implemented by 2019.

iii.


Measures to be implemented in 2009 include: a closed fishing season; action targeted to com-bat poaching; supplementary actions to limit fishing pressure (Polish EMP, p. 49).

iv.


Natural recruitment only plays a minor role on shaping the current Polish eel population (Polish EMP, p. 18). However, the model used to forecast escapement from implemented measures, assumes improved natural recruitment. It is apparent from the graphs presented on p.77 and p.78 that natural recruitment is assumed to contribute substantially to long-term silver eel escapement.

v.

Likelihood/probability of achieving the target within

the time-frame mentioned:

The timeframe is based on the model that assumes a recovery of natural recruitment and therefore has the precondition that the eel stock recovers at a pan-European level. This is only likely if other European countries are able to

achieve 40% silver eel escapement target.

b.


As noted above, the Polish EMP projects that the two EMUs will reach the 40% escapement objective in 2048(Oder) and 2066 (Vistula).

6.

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful implementation of the plan(s):

The EMP identifies the parameters and data inputs required for future evaluation of the effec-tiveness of the plan. Monitoring program details are d iscussed and include plans to collect data on fisheries pressure; population characteristics; and population mortality (Polish EMP, p. 42).

7.


a.


Overall the plan lives up to the aims of the Regulation. The plan will likely be effective at im-proving conservation of the eel in Polish waters to the extent required by the Regulation.

68 |

As noted above, the expected recruitment level is based on a large contribution from im-proved natural recruitment. If this expectation is not met, Poland will have to increase stock-ing or reduce anthropogenic mortality further.


b.


The Polish plan still needs to be coordinated with neighbouring countries.

8.




Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Por tugal


1.


a.

General:

The current Portuguese plan only includes the Portuguese parts of shared river basins. Con-tacts have been made with Spain for fu ture collaboration on plans for the five shared basins: Minho, Lima, Douro, Tejo, and Guadiana.

The Azores and Madeira are excluded from the EMP. The Portuguese EMP cites the low and sporadic eel d istribution combined with no fishing and lack of barriers to migration as justifi-cation for these exclusions.

b.


N/A

2.


a.


i.


No estimates are attempted due to lack of data. Available data do not d istinguish between yellow and silver eel. It could be possible to make estimates using the habitat area provided in the EMP combined with production data from neighbouring countries or the literature.

ii.


No estimates are attempted due to lack of data.

iii.



iv.



v.



b.


No estimates are attempted due to lack of data estimates are provided.

c.


70 |

No methods used.

3.

Restocking

a.


At present there is no plan for a national stocking program.

b.


No stocking plan is d iscussed other than the possible restocking with 60% glass eel caught if the glass eel fishery is not closed on the Minho River.

c.


The Portuguese EMP discusses closing the glass eel fishery in Minho (the only river with le-gal glass eel fishing) provided this is agreed with Spain. If not, Portugal will restock with 60% of glass eel caught.

4.


The contributions of measures are not quantified and no escapement target is set.

5.


a.


i.


No escapement goal is set and therefore no time schedule is described . However, the plan does include measures set at a short, medium, and long-term time scale aimed at reducing fishing effort, extended fishery controls, and improving ease of passage of barriers for eels migrating both up and downstream. Measures are also presented broken down by RBD with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level priorities corresponding to action in the short, medium, and long term.

ii.


No intermediate time schedule given except the points stated above and below.

iii.


Measures to be implemented in the next 3 years are summarized below. The plan

does not mention more specific dates for implementation and it is not clear if there are measures that will be implemented in the first year.

Measures to be implemented in the first three years:

Ban on recreational fisheries in inland, transitional and coastal waters.

Greater regulation in the fishery of both inland and coastal waters including a licens-ing system; closed areas for fishing, limits to gear and seasons, and requirements to declare catch from inland waters (already a requirement in coastal waters).


Standardize minimum landing size to 22cm across the country (except in the Minho RBD where the minimum landing size is < 12cm).

The measures presented for implementation (summarized above) do not quantify how much they will contribute to a reduction in fishing mortality. These measures will not contribute enough to the needed 85% reduction of fishing mortality to stop further decline in the eel stock (Åström and Dekker, 2007).

Management measures in the Minho RBD will be adopted in cooperation with Spain. Closing

the glass eel fishery will be considered and must be agreed by both countries. If not the Por-tuguese will restock with 60% of glass eel caught.

iv.


Not given.

b.


N/A

c.


The Portuguese EMP is submitted as one plan. A target for escapement is not presented.

6.


a.


A pilot study on eels (under the DCF) is being developed to collect information on the fishery and biological data.

The plan also outlines the need to implement a study to collect information on: density and biomass; current recruitment and pristine recruitment estimates; mortality rates at all life stages.

Monitoring and ensuring enforcement to prevent illegal glass eel fishing will be important to the success of the plan.

7.

Qualitative analyses of the

plan(s);

a.


Portugal has already banned glass eel fishing in all rivers except in river Minho. They also aim to stop glass eel fishing in the river Minho if agreement with Spain can be obtained . The EMP for Galicia (Spain) states that fishing for eels <12 cm is prohibited

which .however, is in contrad iction to the WGEEL 2008 Report which describes the glass eel fishing season as Five days before and after the new moon from November

until March (WGEEL 2008, p .240).

The issue of fishing on yellow and silver eel also needs to be addressed . Portugal might be a good place for stocking due to the easy migration route to the Sargasso Sea for silver eel, if areas with low fishing and low other anthropogenic mortality can be

found. Targets need to be defined.

Short-

and medium-term improvements of survival in eel of a similar magnitude as a reduc-tion in fishing intensity to less than 15% of the present level is needed for reversing the downwards decline in the eel stock. As the Portuguese EMP is not resulting in this level of improved survival of eel in the short and medium term the Portuguese plan will only be ef-fective if other countries are compensating for this shortage.

72 |

b.


No plans are made for shared river basins in this first year of reporting.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Di-rective 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in pream-ble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:



Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Repub l ic of Ireland


and as such

is not ICES





1.


a.

General:

The Transboundary RBDs shared by the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have been d ivided based on agreements between the relevant authorities. Coord ination efforts are ade-quate.

b.


This is not a relevant concern for Ireland as there is no fishing in waters outside the scope of the Directive.

2.


a.


For catchments where estimated silver eel escapement, fishery yield , and/or hydropower im-pact data were not available, geological characteristics were related to eel productivity in a model which allows the use of a geological proxy for production.

The Irish model does not include transitional or tidal waters.

i.


The Irish plan uses a combination of the methods outlined in Article 2.5 of Council Regula-tion (EC) No 1100/2007 to create rough estimates of potential silver eel escapement. The Irish plan estimates pristine spawner productivity based on d irect measurement and/or catch data for 5 catchments. The estimates ranged from 0.9 to 5.5 kg/ha and 595 tonnes per year.

Not included in the estimate is an unknown pristine escapement value from transitional and tidal waters. ICES Fish Stat Plus database indicates a catch of around 100 tonnes per year over the past two decades.

The production per hectare estimates are based on investigations conducted in Ireland . They include data on IUU fishing and if these are underestimates the production per hectare will also be underestimated.

ii.


Total current silver eel escapement has been estimated at 140 tonnes or 24% of pristine es-capement.

iii.


The Irish model projects that in 2010 current potential escapement without fishing could be around 25% of

the pristine escapement. This level will decrease to around 15% in 2020 due to the history of declining recruitment over the past 10 years.

74 |

iv.


The Irish model projects that in 2010 current

potential escapement without any anthropogenic

mortality could approach 37% of the pristine escapement. This level will decrease to around 20% in 2020 due to the history of declining recruitment over the past 10 years.

b.


Although no estimate of uncertainty has been included in the model as yet the presentation of intermediate calculations allow us to subjectively judge the accuracy level to be in the me-dium to high range.

c.


The evaluation finds the description adequate.

d.


A joint plan was prepared for the shared North West International River Basin District.

3.

Restocking

a.


Currently zero. Existing assisted migration (eel ladders) in Irish RBDs will continue.

Current glass eel stocking from the Shannon estuary to other parts of the Shannon will be d iscontinued to minimize risk given low recruitment levels and the presence of Anguillicola crassus.

Thus there is no immediate plan to use stocking as a contribution to reach the 40% target. The monitoring program will assess whether the use of stocking and/or assisted upstream migra-tion are appropriate under the current low recruitment levels and these will be reviewed in 2012.

b.


The plan mentions the possibility of a fu ture restocking strategy ...in the event of recovering recruitment . The proposed strategy will target quality catchments for conservation purposes.

c.


Glass eel and elver fishing is prohibited with some provisions for licensed fishing. 100% of glass eel and elver catch is used for stocking. Due to the increasing value of glass eel it will be necessary to closely monitor glass eel and elver fishing operations to ensure the catch is used for the intended purpose as described in the EMP.

4.


Stocking will not contribute to an increase in escapement because it is an existing operation that is moving juvenile eel in a given river or across river systems within Ireland.

Cessation of fishing will contribute 100% towards the achievement of the escapement target and along with decreasing turbine mortality through trap & transport the target will be


reached in 90 years time provided recovery of recruitment is the same as meeting the silver eel escapement target of 40%.

These estimates provided by the Irish model also assume that other European countries will contribute to the 40% escapement target with the same timeframe so that recruitment to Ire-land has recovered as predicted by the model.

5.


a.


i.


The Irish plan uses recruitment recovery as ...an INTERIM, or alternative, target towards the escapement target. (Irish EMP, p.75). Therefore silver eel escapement will be reached one eel generation later which corresponds to roughly 15 years. The timeframe projects recruitment recovery to occur in 90 years. This results in a timeframe of 105 years to meet the escapement objective. If Ireland wants to reach 40% in the short-

to medium-term stocking of glass eel from other countries are needed.

ii.


The Irish plan consists of fu ll implementation of its management measures in the first year of the regulation (2009).

iii.


Cease fishery and close eel market.

Implement a trap & transport program

for silver eels to avoid turbine mortality.

iv.


Historic data ind icates a decline in recruitment ranging from 4% to 23% of historic levels (Irish EMP, p. 57). The expected recruitment development is first a further

decline and then an increase to full recovery in 90 years based on increased survival of eel corresponding to a European wide stop of eel fishing or equivalent measures.

v.


Conditional that other Member States live up to the goal of the 40% silver eel escapement in due time well before the timeframe of the Irish plan or all other countries follow the Irish ex-ample of total closure of the eel fishery and reduce turbine mortality immediately, the Irish plan is likely to achieve the target within the timeframe described above. Various improve-ments in water quality and improved migration possibilities will likely shorten the timeframe to achieving the target.

b.


The description is adequate and calls for no further evaluation.

6.


Adequate.

7.


76 |

a.


Overall, screening the plan indicates that it lives up to the aims of the regulation.

The main measure proposed in the Irish plan to close the fishery makes for ease of monitor-ing and control.

b.


Adequate.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic

Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:


Review Service: Evaluation of Eel Management Plans

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS Sweden:

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possibly causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are specifically mentioned.

1.


a.

General:

The Swedish plan has been submitted as

a single eel management unit. Biomass es-timates for ind ividual RBDs are not provided . Unspecified coord ination efforts have been undertaken with the Danish Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Direc-torate of Nature Management. Shared river basins with Norway are not considered productive eel habitat. This is not considered an issue of concern for Swedish river basins.

b.


No specific coord ination plans are d iscussed . However, it is mentioned that 50% of Swedish eel catch may originate from other countries around the Baltic Sea. The ma-jor part of the Swedish plan for increasing escapement of silver eels is a reduction in marine fishery and will thus benefit eel from other Baltic countries as well. Based on the table of p.6 of the plan a quantification of the benefit may be possible.

2.


a.


A major component of the Swedish eel population is found in transitional and coastal waters. A lack of knowledge related to potential productivity per unit area in coastal habitats is a major factor contributing to uncertainty of estimates of both current

and historic production. However, the approach adopted is well supported.

i.


The pristine escapement level is estimated based on a) the basis of historic maximum population and catch and b) using area of freshwater, transitional and coastal habi-tats together with a qualified guess on the historic recruitment density.

Pristine escapement is estimated between 4.4 to 10 million silver eels.

ii.


Silver eel escapement can be deducted from the table on p.6 to be 1 330 000 silver eels/year. This includes a stocking component of 210 000 (Reference period 2004-2006).

iii.


78 |

Present potential escapement (in the absence of fishing mortality) can be estimated at 2 800 000 eels and includes a stocking component of 210 000 (Reference period 2004-2006).

iv.

Current potential escapement given no anthropogenic mor-tality at all:

Present possible escapement without human mortality is 3 080 000 eels. This includes a stocking component of 210 000 (Reference period 2004-2006).

b.


An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but based on the data presented a medium level of accuracy has been assigned.

c.


N/A

d.


N/A

3.

Restocking

a.


Current restocking measures are reported at 1-1.2 million (individuals) annually.

The Swedish EMP plans to increase stocking volume to 2.5million (individuals). The plan projects that this will contribute an additional 185 000 silver eels. Restocking measures will only contribute 6% towards the target escapement of silver eel. (Swed-ish EMP, See table on p.6)

b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with re-spect to restocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and be-ginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

Restocking is established in Sweden. Restocking will be targeted in south and central Sweden where anthropogenic mortality is considered low. Specific areas for restock-ing are reported . The report claims that sites have been chosen with little or negligi-ble fishing pressure and with few downstream migration obstacles. If stocking material is a scarce resource it may be more suitable to stock in areas that are com-pletely free of anthropogenic mortality factors.

c.


There is no glass eel fishery in Sweden.

4.


Estimated contributions are reported as: 2007 fishing regulation (special permits) con-tributes 32%; continued regulation contributes 43%; reduction in turbine mortality contributes 11% and increased

restocking contributes 14% in terms of silver eel num-bers to achieving the target reduction in anthropogenic mortality. These estimates seem well justified.


5.

Achieving with high probability and in the long term, the escapement to the sea of at least 40% of

silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of

escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock (Regulation (EC) 1100/2007, Article 2 (4);

a.


i.


The plan uses the timeframe to recovery approach by Åström and Dekker (2007), stat-ing that the timeframe to recovery will be 200 years if anthropogenic mortality is re-duced (by 90%) to 10% of the present level. The timeframe has the precondition that anthropogenic mortality will be reduced to 10% of its present value at a pan-European level. This is likely if other European countries are able to achieve 40% sil-ver eel escapement target. The Swedish plan is in the short term expected to result in 2.6 million silver eel escapement which is 36% of the mean pristine silver eel escape-ment. This means that only a small increase in recruitment will bring the Swedish silver eel escapement above the target of

40%. This means that the target could possi-bly be reached sooner than 200 years time.

ii.

Intermediate time schedule reflecting the gradual ap-proach :

Most proposed measures will be implemented in the first years of implementation of the Regulation. Reducing turbine mortality will be a longer term target. Achieving 40% survival within 5 years (from 2009) of implementation of the EMP is a stated goal. This target will be evaluated by measuring mortality of tagged eels in 2012 and 2015.

iii.


In the first year of implementation (2009), changes are planned in both the yellow eel and silver eel fishery. Changes include: a shorter fishing season; increased minimum landing size; new limits in effort and capacity. In 2007 fishing had already

been re-duced through the introduction of a general ban on eel fishing in marine and inland waters. A licensing system has been introduced for the professional fishery and has contributed to catch reductions from 2006 to 2007.

iv.


The expected recruitment level is the one resulting from a reduction in pan-European stock level fishing mortality to 10% of the present value according to Åström and Dekker (2007).

v.


Conditional that other Member States live up to the goal of the 40% silver eel es-capement the Swedish plan is likely to achieve the target within the 200 year time-frame described above.

b.


Sweden has submitted one national plan.

6.

Inclusion of adequate measures to monitor and verify successful imple-mentation of the plan(s); Monitor and verify management target:

80 |

The Swedish plan outlines an adaptive management model which includes plans for data collection and improvement of estimates as more data become available. Direct quantification of escapement may be possible with existing fisheries and well de-signed tagging stud ies. The plan notes that one complicating factor with this method is the proportion of Swedish eel catch from other Baltic countries.

Other planned monitoring is based on index areas and intends to measure relative abundance, sex and size d istributions, migration, and recruitment using various methods (depending on life stage targeted).

The measures to monitor and verify successful implementation seem adequate.

7.


a.

Qualitative analysis of possible effectiveness of the

(each) plan as a whole:

Overall the plan seems to live up to the aims of the regulation. The plan will likely be effective at improving conservation of the eel in Swedish waters to the extent re-quired by the Regulation.

A minor reservation with the plan relates to implementation and enforcement of the effort regulation. The plan to allow fisherman with an eel license, freedom to choose when they fish is not a transparent management practice as it creates a system that is more difficult to enforce than a general closed season.

b.


There are no plans pertaining to the shared the Baltic Sea catchment area in general.

8.


Some of the eels escaping from other Baltic countries will be part of Swedish catches in this way is reducing the effect of possible contribution to silver eel escapement of other MS EMPs. However, the Swedish plan aims to reduce fishing effort considera-bly. Denmark is also catching silver eel of other Baltic countries and in order to reach the 40% escapement target of the Baltic area combined the escapement from other Baltic countries need to be higher than 40% to compensate for this. A closer coordina-tion between Baltic countries is needed on this issue.

Review Service: Evaluation of Eel Management Plans

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS UK: England and Wales


and as such

is not





mentioned.

The U.K. has submitted 15 plans for individual assessment. The plans in England and Wales have used a common approach and the valid ity of that approach is evaluated in the following. Issues in specific RBDs not covered in this general evaluation are highlighted in Table 1 that follows this evaluation. The plans of Scotland and the RBDs in Northern Ireland have used d ifferent models for estimates and have been treated in separate evaluations.

The evaluation of the U.K. EMP developed through written correspondence between the European Commission

and the U.K. UK resubmitted an updated model for calculation of the reference for the pristine escapement.

There remain concerns about the data and is the anthropogenic mortality of migrating silver eel

hydro-turbine mortality

and that from pumping stations

-

taken properly into account.

1


a.

General

The Reference Condition Model (RCM) is used to estimate eel density in all of the plans

from England and Wales. The use of the same model is a consistent approach although the plans have been submitted for individual evaluation.

b.


Not an issue here.

2


a.


The England/Wales EMP overview explains that silver eel escapement has not been quantified and therefore yellow eel data has been used as a surrogate.

i .


All of the EMPs for the various RBD in England and Wales use the method of Aprahamian et al.

(2007) called the Reference Condition Model (RCM). This model is based on data from the late 1970s and early 1980s before the resident eel populations in UK would have been affected significantly by the decline in glass eel recruitment from the early 1980s. However, the reference datasets reflect the influence of exploitation and other anthropogenic influence acting on eel production in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and particularly the effect of barriers and fishing. The authors realize this and that is why they do not call the RCM results for pristine condition but reference condition . It is surprising that there is not more historic data referenced (or possibly available) within the plans from England and Wales.

82 |

In the England and Wales EMP overview (p.15) states:

The Regulation suggests determining the target level of escapement based on the potential eel

production, in the absence of anthropogenic mortality factors. However, in relation to barriers the vast majority of obstructions have been in place and impacting on the stock prior to the collapse in glass eel recruitment in 1983/84. Thus the amount of eel-producing habitat avail-able during the period of high and relatively stable recruitment (1950-1980) could be consid-ered optimal

This argument is only correct on a pan-European scale. It is very likely that not all areas in Europe contribute equally to the spawning stock which produced sufficient recruitment in the pre-1980s period . For England where there was high glass eel fishing and numerous barriers in the rivers pre 1980 and it cannot be assumed that English rivers were contribut-ing equally

to the spawning stock it seems much more likely that this was not the case. Some lightly exploited areas probably compensated for others more heavily affected by barriers and fishing

and therefore some RB may not have produced enough spawners. The eel recruitment pre 1980s is regarded by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 as a proxy for pristine recruitment

and this target on an eel system basis is chosen as a form of equal sharing of the burden .

A very strong assumption in the RCM is that the current density in the lower part of the river is still at the pre1980 level (the observed curve starts at the same point as the

predicted curve). This assumption is not based on presented data, but on a subjective judgment that there is still enough glass eel recruiting to the lower parts of the rivers. Data from WGEEL (2008) suggest a continued declining trend with low levels of recruitment in most catchments. It is evident that if the observed curve starts with an assumption of half the density then the current production would be much lower than estimated . It would have been useful to see the actual observations plotted in the graph for evaluation of the estimate.

In the cases where the present densities are lower than the 40% target, a calculation of the needed stocking is presented in the EMP. In these calculations it is not obvious how density of yellow eel from the RCM has been linked to silver eel escapement.

The pristine silver eel escapement can actually be deducted from some of the plans. An example is the SW EMP section 3.3 where it is stated that the present density level according to the RCM is 32% of the pred icted (which means that there are 8% required to make the 40% target) and that:

The Gara is not an ideal river for stocking, but assuming that all of the rivers in the RBD have an eel density similar to the Gara then stocking the areas of habitat from 10-80 km up-stream of the tidal limit, a total area of approximately 517km2, with sufficient glass eels to increase the population to meet the 40% escapement target and assuming a 15% survival of glass eels to silver eel, it is estimated that at least 7.8 million glass eels (2.6 tonnes) would have to be stocked annually in the South West RBD.

Thus, the stocking of 2.6 tonnes of glass eel should correspond to 8% of pristine escapement. As 1t of glass eel (0.33g) normally are quoted to correspond to 100t of silver eel escapement at no anthropogenic mortality (quite similar to what is stated above of a 15% survival of glass to silver eel if the average weight of silver eel is about 250g), this means that the pristine escapement is 3250 t for the SW area.

The data used by UK in the RCM model runs are often

from after 1980 and thus strictly speaking not in accordance with the time period (pre-1980s) mentioned in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007. As the RCM is based on density of all eel stages they will reflect the potential silver eel escapement some years later. In the river Severn the electro


fishing was conducted in 1983/1984 and thus represent silver eel escapement in say around 1990. However, in 1990 recruitment was already reduced on a pan European stocks level to only about 20% of the pre-1980 level. If that is assumed to correspond at least to the same reduction in spawners (silver eel) as is normal for stock-recruitment relationships, it means that the baseline for the RCM model is less than 20% of the pre-1980s level. This is a further indication that the RCM approach is severely underestimating the pristine silver eel escapement.

We regard the alternative methods (b and c) as possible to apply to the UK situation (UK has in fact done it already for a few areas where the observed RCM serve is under the 40% and stocking is needed as shown above) and as able to produce the requested estimates of pristine silver eel escapement in the absence of anthropogenic mortality. Clearly, such an approach will result in many more river basins being below the target than stated in the UK EMPs.

i i .


Current escapement is only indirectly estimated by the RCM, see comments above.

i i i .


Not easily deducted from the plans.

iv .

Current potential escapement given no anthropo-genic mortality at all:

Not easily deducted from the plans.

b.


Some observed curves produced by the RCM are above the pristine curves. The level they are above indicates the minimum of the level of imprecision in the estimates. The accuracy of the model regard ing reflection of the early 1980 and the present densities is probably medium. However, there are potential biases in the approach (in addition to the major issue mentioned above, about whether the RCM reflects the pristine situation or not) and the two most important are the assumption about pristine density at present in the river mouths (both observed and pristine curves start at the same point for X axis value of 0) and the correction for upstream habitat in general will reduce the present eel density (this correction is only done for those rivers where data is available).

c.

Coherency of estimates for shared river

basins:

Adequate.

d.


Adequate.

3

Restocking

a.


Restocking plans are being developed at the RBD level with priority for the RBDs that are not currently meeting the escapement objective. Calculations reflecting stocking needs at a specified stocking density are provided for RBDs not currently meeting the 40% target as calculated by the RCM (These figures are provided in Table 1). As stated above the way these stocking calculations have been done were lacking information on certain important

84 |

assumptions in the approach. Furthermore, the actual figures given for the needed amount of glass eel seems to be reflecting a very high production per hectare.

b.


In support of the restocking plans, two projects are mentioned:

A Quantitative model is being developed called the Eel Stocking Assessment Tool that aims to facilitate best-practice decision making around stocking.

A guidance document is being prepared that focuses on best-practice of restocking for conservation and not at restocking for exploitation.

Until the outcomes of these studies can be implemented , the guidelines published by ICES/EIFAC WGEEL (2007) are referenced.

If stocking material is a scarce resource it may be more suitable to stock in areas that are completely free of anthropogenic mortality factors.

c.


The U.K. plans to develop a restocking plan for each RBD in 2009/2010. The plan defers implementation of this part of the regulation to the first year of approval of the EMP with the first glass eel season of winter 2009/2010.

The existing catch return system as well as import/export market monitoring in the U.K. is cited as helping to facilitate total glass eel catch assessment. The development of an audit system is reported as in d iscussion phase with relevant stakeholders including government, regulators, and industry.

Historically, the catch has not been well monitored with under-reporting of glass eel catches with a factor between 5 and 15 (U.K. overview EMP, p. 10).

The plan also recommends that information on the quantity and origin of eel <12cm stocked be compiled by WGEEL, since the U.K. Environment Agency is not able to monitor details of restocking of eels sourced from England and Wales, but stocked elsewhere.

4


The U.K. EMPs use a method that relates escapement to density instead of biomass (using the RCM). However, specific measures (yet to be decided upon) are,

with an assumed time lag of 15years,

expected to increase yellow eel populations by 0.5 percent per year of pre-1980 levels.

However, this seems to be more of an intention for the fu ture than related to specific measures. The plan is to eventually use the Scenario-based Model for Eel Populations (SMEP) for evaluation of the contribution of specific measures.

5


a.



i .


Each RBD that has been assessed to be failing to meet the 40% escapement target (Based on the RCM) includes an estimated timeframe for reaching compliance with the regulation (See Table 1 following this evaluation).

i i .

Intermediate time schedule reflecting the gradual

approach :

The 0.5 percent contributions per year of the measures can be considered the intermediate time schedule.

i i i .


Specific measures are described in the individual plans. Monitoring is not considered a measure in this connection. The only committed measure specified are general habitat improvements mostly in connection with the WFD and a few measures specifically aimed at improving eel migration.

iv .


Data based on HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) import-export records of glass eel (1982-2008) suggests a decline in recruitment of 2% per year. The RCM model approach does not take into account that the reduced recruitment in the most recent years will mean that several RBDs which have now been evaluated above the escapement target will be below in the next 5-10 years.

v.


England and Wales seems to rely on stocking if the RBD is not meeting the target to the extent that stocking will bring back the escapement to the target level. The likelihood or probability of achieving the target will thus depend on the availability of stocking material.

b.


The plans of the U.K. have been submitted for individual assessment aiming at 40% in each RBD.

6


a.


Historically, monitoring of one of the most fundamental parameters in eel management namely catches, has been problematic. The report states (UK EMP overview, p. 10):

comparison of catch data has been compared with nett eel exports for England and Wales from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) suggests a significant level of under-reporting, by between 5 and

15 times for glass eel and about 6 times for yellow and silver eel combined , with rates d iffering from year to year

Plans to improve the catch reporting system are also mentioned . Improvement of catch monitoring will be important to address the problems

of under-reporting.

The overview mentions that the RCM model used to assess compliance with the regulation is limited and a shift to the Scenario-based Model for Eel Populations is planned for assessing compliance in 2012.

86 |

Eel specific monitoring will be increased from 2009. The specific components of the proposed increase in monitoring include: One more glass eel/elver west coast monitoring site; Additional index rivers sampled with a focus on yellow-eel; at least one new silver eel monitoring site. These improvements combined with planned improvements in electro-fishing surveys are adequate.

7


a.


Overall, it seems that the estimated targets are too low due to problems with the approach combined with a lack of input data for the model used . As stated in the UK EMP appendix X:

the reference dataset reflects the influence of exploitation and other anthropogenic influ-ences acting on eel production

in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and particularly likely effects of barrier to migration and poor water quality. Therefore, the contemporary stock level does not represent pristine conditions

We suggest that the pristine escapement could be calculated

using the habitat method and in case of lack of pristine escapement per habitat area from England and Wales that values from Denmark or the Netherlands could be used. Since the EMPs which have been assessed to not be meeting the target level provide estimates of the stocking levels required to meet the target, it seems however, that there must be a production per habitat area data basis already used to calculate these values. The values used in these calculations might also be used as a proxy for production per habitat area.

These factors suggest that anthropogenic mortality will have to be reduced by a much larger level than given in the current plan. With regard to a reduction in fishing pressure, the plan seems to be mostly focused on improved means of data collection. The plan does not aim to reduce fishing. The overview states that the preferred approach to conserving a sustainable fishery while working towards achieving and maintaining compliance, should be to hold the fishery within its existing limits. (p . 20).

It is d ifficult to envisage that the needed reduction in anthropogenic mortality can be obtained without substantial reduction in the current fishing pressure.

b.


If suggestions above are followed the plans for the shared river basin (with Scotland) will be adequate.

8


Only an issue with Scotland (see above).


Table 1. England and Wales RBD EMPs Compared.

RBD ES TIM ATES S TATU S CO M M EN TS

Anglian Historic (1987) density data input to RCM for two rivers. Blackwater Catchment: 54%

Colne Catchment: 82%

Assessed to be in compliance.

Significantly impacted by flood defence constructions. The data presented in Figure 2.12 (Anglian EMP) ...suggest an overall decline in the density of yellow eels in these systems since the mid-eighties. Some yellow-eel catch data is presented.

Dee Potential Production based on the RCM with eel specific survey data input: 30%

Predicted date of compliance: 2051. Stocking needs estimates at: 9100000 glass eels (3 tonnes) annually.

It is suggested that the small fisheries are not having a significant impact and that the level of anthropogenic mortality from barriers and entrainment has not significantly changed over the last 25 years. This would seem to indicate that the decline in the yellow eel population may reflect the decline in glass eel recruitment or an increase in other anthropogenic factors . This EMP is an example where

the use of the RCM alone resulted in potential production 41% of reference conditions and estimated population 46%. However, when data from eel specific surveys were input the result was 30% of the reference condition. This raises questions about if the RCM is overestimating compliance in other UK EMPs as well.

Humber Potential production 31% Silver eel escapement 25%

Predicted date of compliance: 2050.

Stocking needs estimated at: 3.7 tonnes of glass eel per year.

Main anthropogenic impacts reported as:

barriers to migration; entrainment & impingement; loss of habitat. Fishing pressure assessed to be non-issue due to low catch: 2005 combined total of yellow & silver eel ~12,500 kg; 2006~6,000; 2007<2,000 kg. If this reflects a decline in effort or eel pop. Is not known. However, the recurrent emphasis on unreliable catch data through-out makes these numbers a worry.

North West

Using the RCM based on the Ellen Catchment: 100% of reference condition. The River Leven has silver eel escapement data: Current production is calculated at 62% of 1942-44 (available data).

Assessed to be in compliance

This EMP acknowledges that the estimate ...is based on limited data centred around a small and possibly unrepresentative river in the north of the RBD.

Northumbria 61% of reference condition. Uses RCM. Low confidence in input data.


Existing data consists of multi-species fishing data. The method and varying sampling sites make the data unreliable. However, declining eel presence is shown for 4 rivers in the catchment. Data from the river Blyth is shown to have the typical situation for U.K. eel populations of declining density but increasing biomass & mean fish length with increasing distance from the tidal limit. The EMP states that this River Blyth may not be representative of all rivers in the catchment.

88 |

Severn Current production 34% of reference condition.

Predicted date of compliance: 2050.

Stocking needs estimated at: 7350000 glass eels (2.45 tonnes)annually

Measures don t seem to go beyond improved monitoring assessments. The current catch return system in place in the U.K. is cited as helping to facilitate total glass eel catch assessment in the U.K. The development of an audit system is reported as in discussion phase with relevant stakeholders including government, regulators, and industry. The Severn is an important producer of glass eel supply for stocking across Europe. The plan does not adequately address the requirements of the regulation to reserve 35% of glass eel/elvers for restocking.

Solway Tweed

Uses the RCM and calculates that densities are currently greater than the reference period.


The plan includes the Scottish and English parts of the catchment. The plan notes that the input data was based on surveys that were not eel specific and therefore must be considered to have low confidence. No significant fishery. The plan presents data and states that suggests there is a declining eel population on the east coast (River Tweed). This plan uses data from the river Sark.

South East

Using the RCM, the River Adur is calculated (using 2005 data) to be at 27% of reference conditions. With weighting of available habitat the catchment is only at 14% of reference conditions.

Predicted date of compliance: 2047.Stocking needs estimated at: 170, 000 glass eels (0.06 tonnes).

Catchment has a commercial silver eel fishery (River Test). The EMP includes the standard paragraph about holding the fishery at its current rate.

South West

Uses data from the River Gara for input to the RCM. 32% of the Reference condition.

Predicted date of compliance: 2039. Stocking needs estimated at: 7.8 million glass eels (2.6 tonnes) annually

Average Silver eel catch 2005-2007 1,700 kg ... and therefore escapement will be less than that estimated by the RCM, which assumes no significant mortality on silver eels. The assessment therefore has a low level of confidence attached to it... (Section 5 South West EMP)

Thames Current Potential Production in the Thames: 99% (100% of reference conditions.

Medway: 61% (65%) of reference conditions.


Input data for the RCM acknowledged as of low-confidence. Based on multi-species electric fishing data.

Western Wales

Potential Production>100% of Reference condition.


RBD has a commercial fishery; 2007 catch of yellow & silver eels reported as 0.191 tonne. Data from the River Wnion is used as input to the RCM. The plan itself describes how this river may not be representative of the whole RBD as it has a steep gradient and low productivity. The river was selected because of the existence of data from a 2003 eel-specific electric fishing survey. The plan also mentions that the southern part of the RBD may be heavily impacted by a variety of (man-made) barriers.


Evaluat ion of EMP for MS UK: Nor t hern Ireland East ern RBD


and as such

is not





mentioned.

The present evaluation deals with the UK Northern Ireland Eastern RBD. The RBDs in the UK Northern Ireland (Neagh/Bann), in the UK England &

Wales and in the UK Scotland have been dealt with in separate documents. The UK NWIRBD follows the Republic of Ireland (RoI) model and has been included in that evaluation.

1.


a.

General:

This EMP is entirely contained within national borders. Only a small part of the River Fane system is shared with the RoI. The RoI portion is included in the RoI Eastern EMP.

b.


A PhD research programme will be run in the transitional waters ad jacent to this RBD (outside the EMP) from 2008-2011. Ideal locations (few anthropogenic impacts) have been identified to investigate the role of marine/brackish water in supporting eel spawner production (Section 5.3).

2.


a.


i.


The NI Eastern RBD uses option c (with reference to similar river systems) to make estimates. With a reported 800 ha of available eel habitat At 5kg per hectare, (Moriarty & Dekker, 1994), this would yield a pristine escapement from full re-cruitment of about 4 tonnes, and an EU

regulation target escapement of about 1.6 tonnes. (NI Eastern RBD, section 2.4.1). The 5kg per hectare value used is a low value compared to other comparable parts of Europe, but comparable to values for RoI for non-acidic geology areas.

ii.


Current escapement is unknown but is reported as free and unimpeded .

iii.


There is no eel fishing in this RBD.

iv.


90 |

There is no hydropower or other known anthropogenic causes of eel mortality in this RBD.

b.


An estimate of accuracy is not d irectly provided , but the data presented allows for a rough idea of its range. We have subjectively determined the accuracy to be at a low level.

c.


Only a minor issue for this RBD. To be coordinated with RoI.

d.


Only a minor issue for this RBD. To be coordinated with RoI.

3.

Restocking

a.


No stocking is currently taking place or planned.

b.


N/A

c.


No eel fisheries exist in this RBD. The EMP notes that the only new fishery that may earn permission is for glass eel/elver for potential assisted migration upstream.

4.


Measures are not quantified in terms of silver eel biomass. Management actions are listed and are aimed at improving migration and knowledge of eel production in the RBD.

5.


a.


i.


As there are very little if any anthropogenic mortality and no stocking planned the fu ture eel stocks will be dependent on an adequate level of natural recruitment (Sec-tion 5.2).

i i .


N/A.

i i i .



No fishing permitted.

iv .


No stocking so dependent on natural recruitment.

v.


Dependant on natural recruitment.

b.


The plans of the UK have been submitted for individual assessment.

6.


Monitoring is to be harmonized with WFD and SMP surveys. One additional site will be added to support eel monitoring. Specific monitoring sites are listed.

7.


a.


In this RBD there is very little if any anthropogenic mortality. The only management measure that could be considered to increase escapement is stocking. This RBD is potentially a good place to stock due to the low anthropogenic mortality, possibly low Anguillicola crassus

levels and a relatively good geographical position for success-ful silver eel migration to the Sargasso Sea.

b.


Only a minor issue for the RBD.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coor-dination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:


92 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS: U.K. Nor t hern Ireland , Neagh/ Bann River Basin

Dist r ict


The evaluation of

the Neagh/Bann EMP developed through written correspondence between the European Commission and

the U.K. The compliance of the Neagh/Bann

Plan with the Eel regulation was further analysed using

Neagh Bann tagging data of silver eel for estimating the escapement. Comparing the very low recaptures of tagged eel in the lower weir, Kilrea (41 eels)

to the upper one Toome (834 eels) raised concerns. The tagging experiments are con-ducted in October and later and there is no fishing in the Kilrea weir almost at all in this pe-riod. This also means that the tagging experiments are not representative for the annual fishing. It is only representative for the escapement in October and onwards. This together with the counter intu itive statement that each of the two weirs blocks 90% of the water but only catch 26% of the silver eel migrating downstream points towards the alternative model for escapement.

Monitoring (by e.g. trapnet fishing or using electronic tags) downstream of the Kilrea weir is a more direct way of getting estimates of silver eel escapement.

The complete analysis of this estimation problem is pending.

1.


a.

General:

The responsible authorities in the Republic of Ireland (Ireland) and Northern Ireland agreed that plans for parts of this catchment that are part of Ireland will be included in the Eastern RBD EMP to be submitted by Ireland.

b.


Not an issue in this RBD.

2.


a.


i.


The Neagh/Bann EMP outlines three methods to estimate potential escapement: estimation from data related to the input-output lag relationship (although no concrete estimate is given); the history of the sex ratio of the catch; and known productivity of eel

growing areas.

The pristine escapement estimation value of 400-600 tonnes per year seems reasonable

com-pared to productivity estimates from similar systems. As one value is needed ,

the mean, i.e. 500 tonnes,

is the accepted value. The mean value also corresponds to the target value of 200 tonnes stated in the EMP on p.38.

ii.



Current escapement is estimated at 245-357 tonnes (Annual average 2003-2008, table 2). How-ever, the estimate is considered with some reservations. The two silver eel fishery equipment in the river, Toome and Kilrea, filter 90% of the river. Based on tagging experiments it is claimed that they only catch 30% of the silver eel migrating out. It seems questionable that only 30% of the silver eel are caught when 90% of the water is filtered .

The tagging data also look peculiar as the recaptures in the upper installation, Toome, catch about 95% of the recaptures (table 2 p.30) while the catch of silver eel over time in Toome is only about twice as large as that in Kilrea. The recapture rate estimates are strongly influ-enced by tag loss and tagging mortality. This together with the high recaptures in Toome in-d icates that the silver eel fishery takes much more than 30% of the silver escapement. A simple calculation assuming that the Kilrea equipment is half as effective as the Toome (based on historical catches) indicates that the escapement might be only 6%. Thus we have two es-timates based on the same data about the escapement and they give 6% and 70% respectively. The best estimate (although very uncertain) is probably somewhere in between. If 40% is used in the calculation (the combined tag loss and tagging mortality would then be about 50%), the result is an escapement of 105-153 t per year of silver eel,

and thus below the target of 40% of 500 t, i.e. 200t.

A. crassus

adds a new mortality factor (since 2003, so the above tagging experiment covers the present situation with A. crassus,

but most silver eel in the tagging experiment will have lived most of their life without A.crassus

) to the eel population in the Lough Neagh and this is not taken into account in the calculations. Whether this can be compensated with further stocking or will have to be counteracted by lower fishing is an open question.

iii.


Current potential production in case of no fishing mortality is not given, but can roughly be estimated to be around the sum of the present (2005-2008) catch of yellow eel and silver eel plus 6% to 70% of silver eel escapement to around 430-650 t.

iv.


Same as above as there are no other sources of anthropogenic mortality in the Neagh/Bann RBD.

b.


Estimates of current escapement are very uncertain (see above). The estimate of pristine es-capement is more reliable and has been assigned a medium level of accuracy.

c.

Coherency of estimates for shared

river basins:

Not an issue here.

d.


Not an issue here.

3.

Restocking

a.


The Lough Neagh Fishermen s Co-operative (LNFCS) aim to stock 6 to 8 million individuals or 150 to 200 elvers per hectare. Some of these elver are sourced from natural recruitment (Trap & transport) while others are purchased from outside the catchment. The stocking tar-get is based on achieving eel of prime market value and concurrently to support the managed

94 |

fishery and allow adequate escapement. The level of restocking will be dependent on the level of natural recruitment. The present natural recruitment has been quite low and stocking from other rivers (e.g. River Severn) need in the future to be substantial, about 70-90% or even more to reach the 6 to 8 million ind ividuals needed to maintain the current aim. That corre-sponds to about 2.5 t glass eel from other river systems. If a mortality rate of 50% is assumed for the process of catching and transportation of glass eel this mean a glass eel catch of 5 t in other river systems.

b.


The purchase of glass eels from outside the catchment, to add to the natural recruitment into a river basin with an established fishery, and the presence of a parasite that is known to ad-versely affect spawner quality, may not be the most efficient use of scarce resources if the primary aim of stocking is to support conservation.

c.


100% of the glass eel fished will be used for stocking.

4.


This EMP claims to already be reaching the escapement target. However, it should be noted that increasingly (since 2002) supplemental stocking has been relied on to maintain fishing pressure.

5.


a.

Time schedule for the attainment of the target

level set in Article 2, (4 & 9):

i.


The Neagh/Bann is a closely managed fishing area. The EMP claims that the RBD currently achieves 40% escapement. As d iscussed above the escapement target will not be met unless further stocking or restrictions to fishing pressure are implemented. Attaining the target in a short timeframe should be achievable since the assessed current escapement is not far from the 40% target.

ii.


See above.

iii.


The plan maintains that measures already in place are adequate and contribute to a sustain-able fishery. The existing measures are summarized as: A closely managed and monitored fishery; restocking. As mentioned above they may not be meeting the escapement target. A simple and straight forward measure to reach the target in the first year could be to reduce fishing pressure on silver eel in the River Bann. For instance by closing silver eel fishing for

a number of weeks in the fishing season.

iv.



No expected recruitment level is specifically mentioned . Due to the recent history of low re-cruitment, the presence of a commercial fishery, and established stocking practices, recruit-ment levels are expected to continue to be supplemented by the purchase of an external glass eel/elver supply.

v.


As mentioned above, the Neagh/Bann EMP claims it is already achieving the target. The plan suggests that 6 to 8 million juvenile eel are required on an annual basis to continue to meet the target escapement objective. This is not considered to be adequate to reach the target level of escapement as assessed by this evaluation.

b.


The EMPs of the U.K. have been submitted for individual assessment.

6.


Established management structures (State and LNFCS) will continue to monitor escapement based on a mark-recapture approach and on the basis of a three-year rolling average. The plan states that detection of escapement (based on this rolling average) that falls below the 200 tonnes target will trigger measures to reduce fishing pressure on yellow and silver eels.

7.


a.


The Lough Neagh fishery is very well monitored and the system is data rich. The components of the plan seem to satisfy the Regulation, except one issue. This concerns the silver eel catch and escapement from the lake. The tagging approach and estimation appears not very precise and potentially very biased (see above).

From a best practice management point of view, it is not a good situation that the fishers have the possibility to catch almost an unlimited amount of silver eel migrating downstream (as the Toome and Kilrea fishing installations seems to be able to almost totally block the river). A high quality and independent control system is needed . A more d irect measurement of the silver eel escapement, for instance by fishing/monitoring downstream from Kilrea, would be important for effective management. For instance, to set a fyke net to d irectly measure silver eel escapement below the Kilrea silver eel fishery.

In order to obtain the 40% of pristine escapement (200t) the Toome and Kilrea fishing equip-ments would need to for instance be completely open every second week in the season for silver eel migration.

b.


The evaluation has nothing to add to this part of the EMP

8.


No negative impacts expected.

96 |

Evaluat ion of EMP for MS UK: Scot land

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possibly causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are specifically mentioned.

The Scottish plan was changed and resubmitted with estimates based on calculating the natural habitat available to eel and using silver eel escapement values from both Ireland and Scotland since Scottish data alone was insufficient.

The resubmitted plan has no pending issues.

1.


a.

General:

The EMP for the transboundary catchments of Solway Tweed and the relevant parts of Northumbria, have been included in the U.K. reports (England and Wales) pre-pared by the Environment Agency. Scotland does not use the RCM method used in the EMPs of England and Wales due to a lack of data on yellow-eel densities. The plan states Coastal and transitional waters are not to be managed within the EMP. There are in any case no known fisheries for eels operating within these waters off Scotland . (Scottish

EMP, p.5). Orkney and Shetland are not accounted for within the U.K. EMPs.

b.


Not an issue for Scotland.

2.


a.


Eel is widespread in Scotland according to the extensive electrofishing data. This is also expected considering the geographical location of Scotland in relation to the spa-tial d istribution of the eel stock. There are surprisingly little information given (or available) about the history of eel and eel fishing in Scotland . There is very little eel fishing in Scotland, despite the widespread abundance of eel.

In the fu ture, Scotland

plans to use the Reference Condition Model (RCM) and the Scenario-based Model for Eel Populations (SMEP) to assess compliance. The EMP states that there is currently no available data with which to assess compliance using the RCM. However, we do not recommend the use of the RCM approach to assess compliance with the regulation mainly because of its relation to the pristine situation is uncertain (See further discussion in the evaluation of England and Wales EMP).

Using the available data, which is limited

in time to 1996 to present, the plan assesses time trends in abundance based on probability tests. The tests found no trend in de-cline of density or decreased prevalence of absence of eels. They report that there


may be weak evidence for decline post 2002; No evidence that geographical range is decreasing; No evidence for an increase in mean size of eels that might be expected with declining annual recruitment and consequent greater average age. The little data given in the report about the situation back

to the 1970s ind icates that the den-

sity of eel could have been substantially higher than today. However, a lack of related detailed information prevents a proper evaluation.

It seems that there are enough data available to make a rough habitat based estimate of pristine and present silver eel escapement. There are extensive density and size d istribution data from electro fishing covering the entire area, corrections factors to account for the way the electrofishing was conducted (from e.g. England), growth

data of eel, pre 1980 density data both from rivers and lakes, area data from GIS analysis, and data on barriers and hydropower plants. In addition, available data on cormorant consumption might add information to an analysis of density of eel.

i.


No estimate.

ii.


No estimate.

iii.


No estimate.

iv.


No estimate.

b.


No estimates are provided.

c.


Scotland will follow the England and Wales guidelines for the shared river basins.

d.


The Scottish plan aims to use the RCM and SMEP (when suitable data are available) as used in England and Wales, making estimate and compliance assessment methods compatible in the shared RBDs. However, as stated above the RCM approach is not recommended in its present form.

3.

Restocking

a.


Eel has never been stocked in Scotland, and Scotland does not intend to implement a stocking program, mainly because of risks with transfer of d iseases and uncertainties of the migration of stocked eel. However, Scotland is relatively free of Anguillicola crassus, there are large areas with almost no anthropogenic mortality and Scotland is geographically situated close to the continental shelf (making homing of eel to the Sargasso Sea more likely than from e.g. the Baltic), so Scotland is one of the more suitable areas for stocking aimed at improving the eel spawning stock size.

98 |

b.


N/A

c.


Due to the largely unregulated eel fishery in Scotland , the EMP reports very little knowledge of the glass eel fishery, although some glass eel fishing is acknowledged to be taking place (Scottish EMP, p. 29). A system for monitoring and reporting of catch (of eels at any life stage) is dependent on developments in the new license sys-tem (if any license applications are received) implemented in January 2009 (Scottish EMP, p. 48).

4.


Although no targets or estimates are presented , measures are being implemented in 2009 to improve habitat and limit the fishery. The contribution of these measures in terms of silver eel biomass is not provided.

5.


a.


i.


The Scottish EMP reports that target setting has been prevented by a lack of data. Based on the available data (habitat quality) it is reported that based on their best es-timate, Scotland is already achieving 40% escapement. However,

the plan is contra-dictory as it claims to be meeting the escapement target and simultaneously unable to make a rigorous analysis of if the escapement target is being met (Scottish EMP, p. 47).

ii.


An escapement target using the RCM is expected to be set in by 2012 (Scottish EMP, p.47).

iii.


In 2009, regulations will be introduced to support a licensing system for eel fishing.

Specific barrier improvement projects are listed.

iv.


Expected recruitment level is not d irectly provided . However, the plan does not con-tain an element of stocking and will thus be dependent on improvements in natural recruitment.

v.



No target has been set.

b.


Scotland submits one plan for all of Scotland.

6.


a.


Targets have not yet been set. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)

be-gan a multi-species monitoring program in 2008 associated with the WFD. An eel specific survey and downstream trapping to measure silver eel escapement is planned. Combined with a GIS eel habitat assessment these new monitoring actions will be used to estimate biomass of silver eel escapement. As mentioned above, the aim of new monitoring and data collection is

to eventually use the SMEP to assess compliance.

7.


a.


Scotland has only little eel fishing and few barriers to eel migration compared to most other countries. From 2009 all fishing will be licensed , but there is no commitment given of how many will be issued . It is, however, expected to be few. No stocking is planned, so the plan will depend on improvements in natural recruitment. Scotland would be

one of the best areas for stocking aiming at improving the eel spawning stock. The material presented gives no basis for evaluation whether Scotland is meet-ing the 40% target of pristine silver eel escapement. We find that data are available which could have been used to give a fair estimate of a target in biomass terms.

b.


Scotland will follow the guidelines from England regarding the shared river basins.

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coor-dination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

No negative impacts expected.

100 |

Annex 1

Following the draft evaluation submission to the EU, the Scottish plan was changed and re-submitted to the ICES Secretariat with estimates based on calculating the natural habitat available to eel and using silver eel escapement values from both Ireland and Scotland since Scottish data alone was insufficient.

The estimates are well supported with available data and are reported as:

Pristine 184 tonnes silver eel escapement per year;

Current is 85 tonnes per year which is greater than the 40% target.

Eel fishing has not been regulated and therefore no formal record of the fishery exists. The EMP does mention a 2003 survey which estimated eel catch to be 2-3

tonnes per annum mostly consisting of yellow eel and silver eel contributing less than 100 kg. Some anecdotal evidence related to a fisherman stopping fishing based on declining catches is also presented causing concern. However, this is not supported by other data (p.30).

Turbine mortality is reported to be <5% on yellow and silver eel respectively these values re-flect ...d irect mortality or via habitat exclusion and associated density dependent increase in mortality (p.53) though the values are reported

to be estimates based on weak data reflecting the current state of knowledge.


ADDENDUM TO ICES SECRETARIAT REPORT OF 13 NOVEM-

BER 2009

Contents

Evaluation of EMP for MS Italy

......................................................................................

102

Evaluation of EMP for MS Greece

..................................................................................

119

Evaluation of EMP for MS Spain

....................................................................................

124

ICES Secretariat Review Service comments to the French response

.......................

144

ICES Secretariat Review Service comments to the Portuguese response ................

146

EC request to ICES on evaluation of applications of exemption from the obligation to submit Eel Management Plans from Bulgaria

and Slovenia.

............

148

102 |

Eval u at i o n o f EMP f o r MS I t a l y

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possible

causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are specifi-

cally mentioned.

Italy has submitted one national plan with separate plans for 9 regions identified as key centres . For all other regions that d id not participate in the planning process it

is stated that the working assumption is that eel fishing will stop completely (Italian EMP, p. 38). The silver eel escapement target is mentioned in the Italian EMP as a national target. However, it should rather be regarded as a target only for the 9 regions which have made separate plans.

2.


a.

General:

Shared river basins with Slovenia were excluded with the argument that eel has no significant presence in these catchments and no fishing or stocking activities are known in these areas (Italian National Overview, p. 34).

This is only partly in line with the Regulation because at least in the pristine situation these river basins are likely eel habitat areas.

b.


N/A

3.


a.


i.


Pristine escapement is presumed in the Italian EMP to be at least equal to the biomass fished in the period defined as pristine i.e. pre-1980. For the 9 key areas the sum is 1732.05 tonnes. This value corresponds to about 6 kg/ha of annual silver eel escape-ment for these key eel areas in Italy.

This is almost certainly an underestimate of the true pristine escapement because other anthropogenic influence (barriers, pollu tion) had impacted the stock in that time period , and because unreported landings (including recreational fishing which is not included at all) are larger than estimated.

Substantial stocking has taken place already in the pre-1980 period but given that this has mainly been based on local caught glass-eel and elvers it should not in general invalidate the approach (but other factors do as stated elsewhere in this section).


One further issue in the approach used in the Italian EMP is that glass eel catches have not been accounted for. These are at present estimated to about 8-10 t. If this is only 5% of historical levels (as in other comparable parts of Europe) the catches in the pre-1980s would be equal to around 160-200t. Had these not been caught and instead been allowed to colonise the eel habitat areas, they would have contributed to the pre 1980 production of silver eel escapement. As 1 t of glass eel stocked normally gives at least 100 t of silver eel escapement in case of no anthropogenic mortality, these amounts of glass eel would be more than enough to support a production of 20 kg/ha (= 5600 t/year for the 9 areas). Based on experience from other countries a production of 20 kg/ha is likely to be a minimum standard for the Italian key eel areas. Only the pristine estimate for Sardinia reports that level of production per unit area. Various values for habitat area are reported in the Italian EMP, the habitat area value used will obviously influence the result.

If 20 kg/ha is also used to calculate a pristine escapement for the other 11 regions (ar-eas other than the 9 key areas identified and for which EMP have been developed) a value of approximately 1200 t of pristine silver eel escapement per year is calculated . This value is also dependant on the habitat area value used.

Using this habitat area approach, the total pristine silver eel escapement for Italy sums to approximately 6800 t/year.

ii.


When evaluating the escapement estimates provided in Table 6.4 from the national overview (p.52), the values were compared against the DEMCAM curves provided in the regional EMPs. When possible the curves which reflect a situation of no stocking or alternately the lowest stocking were chosen for comparison.

The current production values provided in Table 6.4 are compared to the DEMCAM curves in the table below. It is uncertain whether this current production is regarded as current escapement or simply reflects current catches.

National Over-view

There appears to some inconsistencies when comparing the val-ues from the DEMCAM curves to table 6.4 (presented on p. 52 of the overview). 162.08 tonnes summed from all 9

regions versus 476.33 tonnes summed from table 6.4.

Friuli Venezia Giulia

7.86 tonnes (Table 6.4)

5.2 tonnes (from DEMCAM curves)

Veneto 26.56 tonnes (Table 6.4)

7 tonnes (from DEMCAM curves)

Emilia-Romagna 115.01 tonnes (Table 6.4)

62.05 (from DEMCAM

curves)

Lombardy 5.70 tonnes (Table 6.4).

5.70 tonnes (Derived by an alternate method from DEMCAM).

Umbria 0 in both cases.

Escapement in the area described as negligible due to the pres-

104 |

ence of turbines and other human structures.

Lazio 106.5 tonnes (Table 6.4).

24.1 tonnes (from DEMCAM curves).

Tuscany 40 tonnes (Table 6.4) This value was not found in the regional

plan.

7 tonnes from Lagoons

(from DEMCAM curves).

11 tonnes from River and Inland water (From DEMCAM curves).

Apulia 77.54 tonnes (Table 6.4).

19 tonnes (from DEMCAM curves).

Sardinia 91.18 tonnes (Table 6.4).

21.03 tonnes (from DEMCAM curves).

iii.


The DEMCAM model estimates will have to be updated according to the revised pristine escapement level. But

based on the version presented the values are:

National Over-view

1201 tonnes based on the DEMCAM model from the 9 regions.


900

kg in lagoons and 850 kg in inland waters

(Friuli Venezia Giulia EMP, p.43-44).

However, the current catch is 7852 kg and if this was not fished the annual escapement would probably be of at least (because there is still some escapement at the current fishing level) a simi-lar size until the current low recruitment gets reflected in the stock.

Veneto Lagoons: 40 tonnes.

Rivers: 15 tonnes.

(Veneto EMP, p.45-46).

Emilia-Romagna Low yield lagoon: 200 tonnes.

High yield lagoon: 300 tonnes.

Rivers: 16 tonnes.

Lakes:

0.45 tonnes.

(Emilia-Romagna EMP, Section 7.2).

Lombardy 23,000-5% = 21,850 (equivalent to approximately 11 ton-nes/year) (Lombardy EMP, p.10).

It is not clear what the value 5% represents. However, the figure should be 5.7 t plus half of 800 kg i.e. 6.1 t, because that is the amount of current escapement with

the catch estimated summed


assuming 1:1 correspondence between potential escapement from leaving these unfished.

Umbria Escapement in the area described as negligible due to the pres-

ence of turbines and other human structures.

Lazio Lagoons:

9 tonnes.

Rivers: 30 tonnes.

Lakes:

180 tonnes.

(Lazio EMP, p.13-15)

Tuscany Text and graphs do not match (i.e. the graph is labelled lagoon and the text describes the inland situation (Tuscan EMP, p.40-41) However, the following values were deducted from the curves presented:

Lagoon: 57 tonnes.

Rivers and inland waters: 68 tonnes.

Apulia Lagoons: 150 tonnes.

Sardinia High yield Lagoons: 40 tonnes.

Medium yield lagoon: 86 tonnes.

Low yield lagoon: 48 tonnes.

Rivers: 0.23 tonnes.

iv.


National Over-view


As there is no data in this respect, it has not been possible to make these estimates. It is nevertheless our intention to obtain the data necessary in the next few years. (Friu li Venezia Giulia EMP, p.41)

Veneto As there was no data available for this it was not possible to provide estimates. However, the Veneto Region intends to re-cover the missing data in the years to come. (Veneto EMP, p. 7).

Emilia-Romagna As there is no data on this, it has not been possible to make any estimates. However, in the next few years we intend to collect the necessary data about this. ( Emilia-Romagna, Section 6.6).

Lombardy 23,000 eels (equivalent to approximately 11.4 tonnes/year). (Lombardy EMP, p. 10).

It is suggested that the 800 kg catch value should be added (be-

106 |

cause these will not be taken in case of no anthropogenic mortal-ity) to give 12.2 t.

Umbria As the current annual catch is 8.5 t the escapement given no an-

thropogenic mortality is likely to be around 1.5 times the catch, i.e. around 12 t.

Lazio Not easily deducted from the data presented.

Tuscany As there is no data on the subject, it has not been possible to carry out these estimates. It is, however, our intention to collect the data necessary in the next few years. (Tuscan EMP, p.35).

Apulia ...not having any data available it is not in the present state of affairs possible to make any estimates. Apulia

nevertheless has a desire to carry out the necessary investigations in order to collect useful data to evaluate this potential. (Apulia EMP, p. 25).

Sardinia In the absence of relevant data, no estimate could be produced for these figures, It is envisaged that the necessary data will be collected over the next few years. (Sardinian EMP, p.60).

v.


National Over-view

The pristine escapement is as stated above considered biased . The suggested rough value of 20 kg/ha is probably in general on the low side of the true value. In some areas this value will be too low while in a few areas it may be too high.

The current escapement as estimated from the DEMCAM model is uncertain due to the uncertainty about how recent stocking is included in the model.

The current escapement estimated from table 6.4 is uncertain because the link between present production and present es-capement is not clear.


-

Veneto -

Emilia-Romagna -

Lombardy Estimates are made based on a model that starts with recruit-ment. The report is not clear about where the recruitment esti-mate comes from. (See p.9 of the Lombardy EMP). Because of the lack of data from the appropriate time period (pre-1980), it is suggested that a 20 kg/ha value should be applied to the eel habi-tat area. This is probably too low a value for the river habitat and too high a value for the lake habitat given the nature of the lakes (generally quite deep).


Another issue is the relative low value for the river habitat area given, namely 5378 ha, taking into account the dominating fea-ture of the large Po river system.

Umbria Does not use the DEMCAM model. The model uses data from

pre 1980 but all the eel from that period was based on stocking. Thus this cannot be used to estimate pristine silver eel escape-ment.

It is uncertain how to include lake Trasimeno as this lake has only water outlets at high rainfall. There is also a waterfall of more than 160m in another drainage system which is not pass-able by eel, but the eel habitat upstream that waterfall is not given.

Lazio -

Tuscany -

Apulia -

Sardinia -

b.


National Over-view

Most regions use a similar approach to make estimates based on the DEMCAM model. By using the same type of data for this method the estimates are also coherent for shared river basins.

Lombardy Does not use the DEMCAM model. Both the DEMCAM and the ad hoc model used by Lombardy are equally underestimating pristine escapements. The suggested area based approach will make the estimates coherent.

c.


See comments above.

4.

Restocking

a.


National Over-view

Restocking, which has already been used as a management practice in Italy s lagoons to boost eel production and to coun-teract the low recruitment levels which also occurred in certain periods before the decline in recruitment witnessed during the 1980s and 90s, will rely as much as possible on locally caught seed . At present overall, it is hoped that only seed originating from Italy will need to be used, as it is estimated that the capac-ity in Italy is still in the region of 8-10 tonnes. (National over-view, p.59).

108 |

The suggested estimate of pristine escapement and thus a sug-gestion for a new target makes the need for stocking and other measures much larger than what is stated in the present EMP.

The current estimate for restocking need in the 9 regions of Italy is starting with 6.3 tonnes of glass eel in 2010 increasing to 7.1 tonnes in 2016. In addition, 7 tonnes of elvers (25g) for Lombardy annually.


The value of the contribution is not provided independently from other measures. (See Table 12, Friu li Venezia Giulia, p.52). However, stocking provides a significant contribution to achiev-ing the target. Glass-eel needed is 1000-1300 kg.

Veneto Table 14.2 reports stocking to

contribute 38 tonnes in silver eel escapement (Veneto EMP, p. 47).

Seeding in lagoons and valleys:1,000kg/yr which will result in 25 t of silver eel

Seeding in rivers: 500kg/yr which will result in 13 t silver eel es-capement per year (Veneto EMP, p.40).

However, there seems to be several inconsistencies in the data given for the

planned glass eel stocking. Table 7.2

(National Overview, p. 62)

reports glass eel stocking of 2600 kg per year, Section 13 in the Veneto EMP 1500 kg/yr, and table 14.2 in Re-gional plan 1250 kg/yr.

Emilia-Romagna Figure 13 Schedule for the recovery of silver eel by measure reports stocking will contribute ~60 tonnes by 2015.

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2 reports: 638kg/yr

Precise figure not given in the local plan, but it may be

possible to deduct this value from some of the information provided . The data presented for instance:

a) 400g/every 5 ha of elvers or 100g/ha of juveniles in all the lagoons or wetlands in which eel fishing is carried out, as from 2010;

b) 200 g/every 5 ha of elvers or 100 g/ha in lagoons owned by the State or wet environments in which fish traps will be used , as from 2011. (Section 7.2.3).

Lombardy Restocking is projected to contribute 4 tonnes of silver eel es-capement per year (Lombardy EMP, p.25-26).

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 7 t (elvers 25g).

Umbria The level of seed ing reported in the local plan will result in 23.92 tonnes of silver eel escapement. However, these eels will be sub-ject to other anthropogenic mortality factors during downstream


migration

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 35kg increasing to 405kg in 2022.

Lazio Restocking is expected to contribute:

In Lagoons:

4.8 tonnes

In Rivers:

2.5 tonnes

Lakes:

5 tonnes

Total:

12.3 tonnes

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 1124kg (An error in the text of the local plan may have contributed to an error in the national overview table which should probably reflect the value 1105.80 reported in Lazio EMP, p.17).

Tuscany Stocking will contribute a significant amount to the target es-capement.

In lagoons: 5 tonnes which represents only 1/5th of the area. In the remaining area the contribution from stocking to the es-capement target is not specified . (It is not clear how the DEM-CAM curve presented on p.42 relates to the remaining area)

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 540kg

Local plan:

Lagoon: 135 kg

Inland area: 400 kg (Tuscan EMP, p. 40)

The missing 5 kg is not explained in the Tuscan EMP.

Apulia From Table 7.3 stocking is expected to contribute 32900 kg in 2015 and 2016 (Apulia EMP, p.32).

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 552kg

Local plan: 552kg (p.28).

Sardinia ~38 tonnes from Table 4 (p. 70, by subtracting 63,009 kg from 101,079 kg as this latter one is when glass eels stocked in 2010 have grown up to silver eel size (in 2015)).

Glass eel needed:

Table 7.2: 739kg

Local plan: 738 kg (p.69).

110 |

b.


National Over-view


Stocking will take place in dedicated environments or in one or more silver fishing hatcheries, thus permitting active monitor-ing of the stock (section 3.3), and once these have reached sexual maturity they will be released into the wild . The possibility of stocking into the open waters of rivers d irectly communicating with the sea will however be considered . (Friu li Venezia Giulia EMP, p.51).

Veneto The need to create a rigorous stocking protocol with regards to ensuring health of seed stock is briefly described (Veneto EMP, p.39). Stocking sites are specifically mentioned . Stocking will take place in rivers and lagoons. It is not specified if the stocking sites will be in areas free from fishing

and other anthropogenic mortality.

Emilia-Romagna Stocking site protocol not specifically mentioned . But in the short-term restocking is focused on lagoons.

It is not specified if the stocking sites will be in areas free from fishing

and other anthropogenic mortality.

Lombardy Stocking protocol is not more specific than ...ind ividual prov-inces will be requested by the Lombardy region to identify the environments where introducing the species would be strategic and functional for eel conservation, with an accurate evaluation of the desirability of achieving repopulation, taking into account the possibilities for eels to migrate downstream towards the sea, and also environmental quality. (Lombardy EMP, p. 24)

Umbria Inland area where eel production is currently reliant on stocking. The plan is to continue stocking in this area. The EMP acknowl-edges that barrier mitigation works will be needed to be coord i-nated with Lazio. Translocation of silver eels to the sea is d iscussed in Section 8.6. As the aim is to secure a high amount of silver eel

escapement, stocking should not be done in Umbria until migration routes have been improved substantially.

Lazio Although the restocking protocol is not specifically mentioned reference to restocking can be found in several places. In 4.3 Schedule of Management Measures , the measure Identifying

areas where the elvers caught are to be deposited is listed .

Also described in connection to measures to support the local stock , is stocking in lakes that have connection with the sea.

The plan provides for restocking operations in 50% of the rivers in the stretches upstream of the barriers with a quantity of juve-


niles of 375.5 kg. In order to allow the actual release of 40% of silver eel and to ensure that they actually reach the sea, it is planned that pre-set quantities will be taken and transferred downstream, from each river as from 2015 (Lazio EMP, p. 17). As 375.5 kg of glass eel will result in approximately 37 t of silver eel escapement the quantities to be transferred downstream will have to be of a similar amount.

Tuscany Mentioned in a few places:

(Under the heading protection and recovery instruments pro-posed and shared) restocking carried out by professional fish-erman in suitable places (Tuscan EMP, p.37).

It is important that the restocking

activities are aimed at conser-vation and not at fishing.

Developing a study targeted at regional level to identify sites suitable for seed ing, in order to sustain the stock and without any problems of free passage for the silver eel (p . 38).

Apulia In

particular, bearing in mind the need to support eel fishing in the lagoonal areas of Lesina and Varano, and these will be sup-plemented by stocking programmes in other coastal wetlands where eel fishing does not take place, over an initial overall area of 1,100 hectares. The identification of subsequent wetland areas suitable for repopulation plans will take place in the course of the year 2010 through ad hoc investigations. (Apulia EMP, p. 28).

It is important that the restocking activities are aimed at

conser-vation and not at fishing.

Sardinia States that the stocking plan (quantities) outlined will be only in water bodies with d irect access to the sea (Sard inian EMP, p. 70). Some stocking is planned in lagoons with substantial fishing.

c.

Does the EMP

include the requirement for reserving 35% increas-ing to 60% of eel less than 12 cm caught (live and dead glass eel), for stocking (Article 7, (1 &2)?

National Over-view

An overview of how this obligation will be met is provided in the National Overview. (National overview, p.55-56).


Not specifically mentioned in the local plan. However, a measure in the medium term is listed as a prohibition on the fishing of glass eels (Friuli Venezia Giulia EMP, p.50).

Veneto Not specifically

mentioned in the local plan. ...at the current time a significant presence of glass eels has not been recorded in coastal areas and at the mouths of rivers in the Veneto Region, although their presence cannot be excluded before the 1960s. It follows that

the catch is non-existent, both for the purposes of seed ing and for d irect food consumption...Limited quantities (of

112 |

elvers) may nonetheless occasionally be fished by professional fisherman in lagoons and in the end sections of rivers with tradi-tional gear, which has selective features suitable for fishing dif-ferent small species such as silversides, prawns, shrimp, etc. (Veneto EMP, p.17).

Emilia-Romagna Yes. (Section 4.4.3)

Lombardy Inland region with no glass-eel fishing.

Umbria Inland region with no glass-eel fishing.

Lazio Yes (Lazio EMP, p. 16).

Tuscany Elver fishing prohibited except with special permits for seed ing operations (Tuscan EMP, p.26). This part of the regulation is ac-knowledged briefly in some general text in the Annexes (p.5) but is otherwise not dealt with directly by this regional plan.

Apulia There are no fishers authorised by Provinces engaging in the catching of glass eels along the coast of Apulia, but this notwith-standing it may be that professional fishers holding a licence from the Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies to fish juveniles may engage annually in fishing off the mouths of the main regional water bodies at the same time as this stage in the growth of eels migrates towards inland waters (Apulia EMP, p. 20).

Sardinia Yes (Sardinian EMP, p.69).

5.


National Over-view


By 2013:

Restrictions on recreational fishing: 1200 kg;

Restrictions on professional fishing: 700 kg;

The remaining ~20 tonnes coming from stocking. (Friu li Venezia Giulia EMP, p.50-52).

Veneto In 2018,

it is expected:

25% reduction of the fishing effort in free waters: 11,000 kg;

Seeding in the valleys (with 1,000 kg glass eels/year):

25, 000 kg;

And seeding in the rivers (with 250 kg glass eels/year):

13,000 kg.

It is not clear what the 47,726 kg in Table 14.2 refers to. (Veneto


EMP, p. 47)

Emilia-Romagna In 2016:

Lagoons without fishing, seeding 200 kg/ha: ~6,000kg;

Lagoons without fish traps, seeding 200 kg/ha: ~60,000 kg;

Ban on fishing in lagoons without fish traps: ~3,000kg;

Ban on fishing in lagoons with fish traps to contribute ~30,000 kg.

(Figure 13, p.

28 Emilia-Romagna EMP, Italian version)

Lombardy Contribution from adults emigrating seaward produced from seed and adults emigrating seaward which survive fishing~ 5000 kg;

Contribution from adults emigrating seaward from improved turbines ~20,000 kg;

Contribution from adults emigrating seaward produced by natu-ral upstream migration without defragmentation~20,000 kg.

(Figure 9, Lombardy EMP, p.30)

Umbria Silver eel translocated to the sea: 200 kg. The rest will not con-tribute because the silver eel will not escape due to turbines, etc.

Lazio In 2016 with a 25% reduction in fishing effort:

Lagoons of average production, seedings 4268.6 kg: 5000 kg

Rivers, seedings 0 kg: 3000 kg;

Rivers, seedings 357.5 kg: 5500 kg;

Lakes, seeding 0 kg: 17,500 kg;

Lakes, seeding 500 kg: 22,500 kg;

Total: 53,500 kg.

(Table 5, p. 20, Lazio EMP)

Tuscany Reduction of effort by 10% for yellow and 25% for silver eel with annual seeding of 135 kg will result in 16 tonnes from the lagoon.

Reduction of 25% of fishing effort (to be specified in provincial plans) and restocking with 400kg of elvers will result in 78 ton-nes from inland waters. (Tuscan EMP, p.40).

It was not possible with the data provided to deduct how much each management measure will contribute independently of the others.

Apulia In 2016, (no further forecast presented)

Reduction in fishing effort in lagoons with fish traps: 23,200 kg;

Reduction in fishing effort in lagoons without fish traps: 28,100

114 |

kg;

Contribution of stocking (summed from Table 7.3): 32,900 kg.

The target is: 76,000 kg. But the summed total of measures fore-casted in 2016 results in 84,200 kg.

Sardinia Table 4 provides the following figures for silver eel escapement:

Fishing banned in lagoons with fixed traps: 31,409 kg;

Fishing banned in lagoons with no fixed trap: 2836.45kg;

Lagoons with no fishing: 366 kg;

Stocking (summed): 4664 kg;

Annual release total: 101,079 kg;

Annual total to be released: 101,150 kg.

From the data presented in the Sardinia EMP it

has not been pos-sible to deduct the contribution from each management measure, reduction in fishing, stocking and other measures.

6.


a.


i.


National Over-view

Overall at national level, it is anticipated that over 75% of the target level will already be achieved by 2015 and 100% of the target will be reached by 2020 (National Overview, p. 63).

Table 8.1 (p. 64) presents goal attainment at the national level as occurring in 2022.

If the alternate pristine estimates as suggested by this evaluation (based on 20 kg/ha) are used the 40% target is approximately 2700 tonnes and this will not be reached with the planned meas-ures.

ii.


National Over-view

See above

iii.

Measures as of the first year

(2009/2010):

National Over-view

See specific measures in individual areas described below.

Friuli Venezia In 2010: a 50% reduction in recreational fishing; 100 kg stocking


Giulia

of glass eels. (Friuli Venezia Giulia EMP, p. 52)

Veneto In 2010: 25% reduction of the fishing effort in free waters; release

of silver eels from the fishing valleys (Veneto EMP, p.47).

Emilia-Romagna Figure 13 in section 7.2.4 Schedule for implementing the management

measures planned. Restocking with 200 kg/ha in lagoons without fishing and 200 kg/ha in lagoons with fish traps; ban on fishing in lagoons without fish traps; ban in fishing

in lagoons with fish traps.(Emilia-Romagna EMP)

Lombardy Establishing a region wide minimum catch size of 50cm; closed period for eel fishing(Oct, Nov, Dec); repopulation with glass eels (7.4 kg/km2) in lakes and rivers linked to the sea; river de-fragmentation.

Umbria In 2010: Restocking; ban on professional fishing (in d ifferent ar-eas at d ifferent times and for varying lengths of time specified in the plan); feasibility study on fish passes with the Lazio region; translocation of silver eel from upstream of the barriers to the sea; translocation of elvers (if present) from downstream to up-stream of the barriers. (Umbrian EMP, Section 8)

Lazio Closed seasons and restrictions at all life stages; restocking; iden-tification of restocking locations; monitoring. (Lazio EMP, p.19)

Tuscany No time schedule is connected to lists of measures described in Section 11, Management Measures

(Tuscan EMP, p.35).

Apulia In 2009: 15% reduction of fishing effort through closed periods and reduction of equipment for professional fishing in lagoons. In 2010, A further 30% reduction (Table 7.2, Apulia EMP, p.31).

Sardinia In 2010: Commercial and recreational eel fishing banned March-September; glass eel fishing banned 1 March

30 September; restocking 200 g/ha seed in

lagoons with no fishing; identifica-tion of designated glass eel fishing areas; training of operators; monitoring. Figure 10 (Sardinian EMP, p.73)

iv.


National Over-view

The recruitment level is implicitly expected to continue at the current rate into the fu ture in regions which use the DEMCAM model.

Lombardy ...hypothetical figure for annual restocking per province of ap-proximately 500 kg/year, which is equivalent to 5,500 kg/year for the whole of the regional territory...in addition to this number there is an identical inflow of glass eels by natural routes, mak-ing it approximately 11,000 kg/year of glass eels entering the re-gion, either with human assistance or naturally (Lombardy EMP, p.9). Difficult to see what is the actual assumption in terms

116 |

of future natural recruitment.

Umbria Zero natural recruitment to Umbria as barriers prevent eel from

entering in a natural way.

b.


National Over-view

At a national level target achievement will be dependent on the ability of the management agencies to implement the needed measures.

As the proposed target (see above) is higher than the one pre-sented in the Italian EMP, more stocking and a further reduction in fishing and other anthropogenic mortality will be needed. Other measures that enhance escapement of silver eel not pre-sented in the EMP will also be needed.

c.


The total

biomass of silver eel for which escapement needs to be guaranteed at na-tional level, which is equivalent to 40% of previous historical escapement levels, is equal to 692.82 tonnes of silver eel

calculated by adding together the targets calcu-lated by each region.

The target includes only those regions which participated in the planning process. All other regions are stopping fishing. However, the 692.82 tonnes target is not really a national target but only a summed total of those areas that wish to continue fishing.

Each administrative region which has a regional management plan will contribute to reaching its share of this target through the measures and timetable outlined in the plan, in the remaining regions, eel fishing will no longer be permitted . (Italian Na-tional Overview, p.51).

As almost no eel are expected to escape Umbria at present due to turbines etc. this lack of escapement from the area should be compensated by extra escapement in other regions in Italy.

7.


a.


National Over-view

Generally, the plans include monitoring and verification but more focus on d irect measurement of silver eel escapement is needed. See specific issues on regional plans below.


Described with regards to medium-term management measures as:

Standard ised monitoring will be implemented with a view to investigating the status of the stocks which can be identified through a number of parameters which will be identified along


the way .

...investigations and research which will make it possible to es-

tablish the dynamics of eel populations (rates of growth, mortal-ity and development) at the level of ind ividual Management Units and ind icators describing levels of maturity (silver index and maturity index, age through otoliths and scales). (Friuli Venezia Giulia EMP, p. 53).

Obviously, concrete plans for monitoring need to be developed for the longer-term. However, a pilot investigation has already begun in the region to provide information in the short-term.

Veneto Monitoring of upstream migration and of biomass is listed with the management measures proposed in the plan (Veneto EMP, p. 37).

Emilia-Romagna Described in Section 7.2.5.

Lombardy Monitoring plans mentioned include: Monitoring of upstream and downstream migration in artificial fish passes; monitoring of downstream migration (for example: on the first reaches of out-lets from lakes; monitoring of repopulation inputs; monitoring of the effectiveness of habitat improvement works).

Though monitoring implementation is not forecasted in the first three years of the plan.

Umbria Not specifically mentioned. Though implied in some parts of the plan such as In order to do this a study and monitoring will have to be carried out which allows data to be collected to ac-quire a better understanding of the state of the eel population in Umbria identifying precisely the critical factors enabling the measures aimed at to be implemented . (Section 8, Management measures).

Lazio Monitoring briefly described The data collected and processed will be used to check the effectiveness of the measures adopted in the eel management plan and to enable any ad justments to be made to meet the objectives indicated by Community legislation after 2012. (Lazio EMP, p.20).

Tuscany Drawing up a tru ly reliable monitoring programme...sampling to estimate abundance which will involve the fisherman di-rectly. (Tuscan EMP, p. 33).

Apulia The plan provides for monitoring of the envisaged activities through the agreement of a scientific protocol and the activities to be considered in Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007, with the ap-propriate ministry and other regions. (Apulia EMP, p.33)

Seems to

be lacking a more prescriptive stock monitoring plan.

118 |

Sardinia A monitoring programme will be set up to verify that the plan s objectives are being met. It will be carried out with the regional agencies (AGRIS and LAORE Sardegna) and where applicable the involvement of recognised research centres and voluntary organisations. The purpose of monitoring will be to assess the effectiveness of the measures adopted and to complete the collec-tion of the data need to improve the calibration of the DEMCAM model for the measures to be implemented post-2012. (Sard inian EMP, p.72).

8.


a.


National Over-view

Given the suggested alternate target of 2700 tonnes of silver eel escapement per year corresponding to 8 kg/ha eel habitat only Sard inia are forecasting to meet this criteria through implemen-tation of their EMP. Apulia is falling a bit short while the other 7 key regions are falling far below.

Control of illegal fishing will be a challenge in some parts of It-aly. This is especially critical for glass eel fishing.

Umbria Very unlikely that the needed escapement will take place. Only the 200 kg silver translocated will reach the sea while the 40% target correspond to at least 31 t (if 20 kg/ha used on the eel habi-tat area excluding lake Trasimeno) or 132 t if lake Trasimeno is included.

b.


Lombardy Needs to be coordinated with downstream regions.

Umbria Needs to be coordinated with downstream regions.

9.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts

of the Baltic Sea area, and

European waters falling outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboundary coor-dination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:



Eval u at i o n o f EMP f o r MS Gr eece

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possible

causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are specifi-

cally mentioned.

1.


a.

General:

Comparison with shared river basins is currently not possible since Bulgaria has re-quested an exemption from submitting an EMP.

However, the large

Bulgarian Maritsa River is an area where eel is likely to be pre-sent. The River is flowing through Greece-Turkey (border river). There is no evidence of natural obstacles for eel migration up the river and into Bulgaria. In the Greek EMP the Maritsa is referred to as the Evros and is included in the EMU 03 in the

plan. However, specific transboundary coordination with regard to eel is not mentioned in the Greek plan. Future coordination may be important for the Greece EMP in this area of the Evros since the plan includes prohibition of eel fishing in rivers during the main migration periods of silver eel.

b.


Not an issue for Greece.

2.


a.


Estimates of proxies of pristine and current escapement are

based on catch data from

the lagoons as well as expert judgement

due to a lack of data.

The use of catch data from the 1980s and not prior, as specified by the Regulation is due to a lack of data from earlier periods.

i.


The estimate is presented in Table 6.1 Estimates of eel catches (in t) from different fishing activities during the 80 s

(Greek EMP, p.44) as: Total 372.65 tonnes and 40% escape-ment target 149.06 tonnes.

Using the catch figures from lagoons as a proxy for pristine escapement is a justified approach in the absence of other data; lagoons are often totally blocked by dams where eel are caught and prevented from escaping.

However, illegal landings are mentioned as constituting a large amount. These amounts would have to be added to the above figures, as well as those eel which manage to escape in the few water systems which are not totally blocked.

120 |

If the total wetted area of Greece could be confirmed it would be possible to make a rough comparison of production

per hectare to compare to the values given in the

EMP. If the major production area of eel is 34511ha (p.12) and annual production is around 20 kg/ha (see figures 3.8 and 3.11 where it is shown that some of the lagoons in the 80s had that production so those values could be used as a proxy for pristine production) then the total annual production would be around 700 tonnes per year. 40% of that would mean a target of 280 tonnes per year. Taking into account that freshwater production has not been included in this calculation; the 280 tonnes target should be regarded as a minimum.

Freshwater natural eel habitat in Greece should be quantified to allow for more accu-rate future analysis of pristine silver eel escapement.

ii.


The estimate provided is not an estimate of escapement but an estimate of production based on more recent catch data and is presented in Table 6.2 Estimates of eel catches (in t) from different fishing activities during the recent period

(Greek EMP, p. 45)

Total: 145.26 tonnes. As most lagoons are totally blocked the actual present escapement is near zero

plus a small amount from water systems which are not fished.

iii.


This should thus logically be 145.26 tonnes

plus what illegally are caught, plus a small amount from water systems which are not fished (see above).

iv.

Current potential escapement given no anthropogenic mor-tality at all:

Other sources of anthropogenic mortality are not quantified,

but expected to

be large due to pumping stations and poor water quality in some areas.

v.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of esti-mates of current and pristine silver eel escapement:

The plan acknowledges the weaknesses of the approach adopted for estimates of es-capement. As described by the EMP ..it offers a reference point at the present state. The main advantage of the presented data is that they concern mainly catches in transitional and coastal waters

and no additional anthropogenic mortality is expected (Greek EMP, p.46).

A bias is evident in the pristine escapement estimates based on the comparison be-tween the values provided in the EMP and the production per ha calculation pre-sented in this evaluation.

b.


No estimates are provided from Bulgaria.

c.


No estimates are provided from Bulgaria.

3.

Restocking

a.


The planned restocking actions are expected to add about 20 t to the escaping eels after a period of 5-10 years and these individuals are expected to compensate the fur-ther decrease due to the present reduced recruitment. (Greek EMP, p. 54). The glass


eel needed to achieve the stocking target is stated to be achievable from national catches based on experimental fishing in two of the EMUs, but will be dependent on future recruitment.

b.


Technical protocols are still in development. The actions are aimed at enhancement of favourable ecosystems with good water quality and no pumping stations or hydro power turbines, but with fishing (as far as can be understood from the text).

c.


Fishing and commercialization of eels less than 30 cm is totally prohibited in Greece.

Specific authorization is required for fishing targeted at eels <30 cm and only for re-stocking purposes.

4.


Direct release of the eel from lagoon fisheries: 27.4 tonnes.

Prohibition of fyke net fishing in the lagoons: 2.9 tonnes.

Prohibition of eel fishing in rivers: 8.5 tonnes.

Prohibition of

recreational eel fishing: 8.0 tonnes.

Measures will reduce mortality by 32.2% of the present level

and will contribute a total of 46.8 tonnes to silver eel escapement. As the 40% proxy is larger than the present total catch and if Greece is to achieve the

goal in the long term all fishing should be stopped at a certain stage in the future, depending on how and if natural recruitment improves.

5.


a.


i.


The plan states: Assuming that the same trends will be observed all over the Euro-pean stock and the improvement of environmental aspects (migration, water quality) the 40% target will be achieved in 15 to 20 generations (100-150 years) (Greek EMP, p.54).

As Greece is only reducing mortality by 32.2 % and states that

this:

will permit to reach escaping levels higher than the critical level necessary to re-verse the decreasing recruitment trend. Considering the relatively short time to maturation(to be verified) for eel in Greece

this could be reached in 3 to 5 generations (20-35 years). Assuming that the same trends will be observed all over the European stock and the improvement of environmental aspects (migration, water quality) the 40% target will be achieved in 15 to 20 generations (100

150 years). (p .54).

122 |

An 85% reduction on the European wide scale is needed to just halt the present de-creasing trend in eel abundance it is difficult to see that the deductions above can jus-tify a route to stock recovery.

ii.

Intermediate time schedule reflecting the gradual ap-proach :

No intermediate time schedule.

iii.


Measures listed to be implemented in 2009 include: Release 30% of the lagoon catches in the open sea; prohibition of fyke nets in the lagoons; prohibition of eel fishing in rivers; prohibition of eel recreational fishing; maintenance of free fish movements through the Dimikos channel; a consistent reporting system for the fishing effort and landings; raising awareness of the state of the eel stock. It is not clear from the EMP

how the 30% release will be practiced.

iv.


Not specifically mentioned.

b.


As stated by the EMP achieving the target depends on that the same trends are observed all over the European stock (Greek EMP, p.54). As the planned European wide reduction in eel catches is not large enough at least until 2012 to halt the decline in the eel stock, more severe measures would have to be implemented after 2012.2

c.


Submitted as one plan.

6.


a.


Many new monitoring programs are to be implemented in the first years of the Plan. The actions proposed for the first period of the EMP will improve our knowledge on

several aspects of the fishery and the ecosystem (Greek EMP, p.51). Except for the recruitment monitoring, all the monitoring is linked to the fishery

and it would be important to start a fishery independent monitoring of the eel stock

as more severe restrictions in fishing will be needed in the future.

7.


a.


Overall the Greek

plan aims to make reductions of about 30% in fishing

mortality in the first 3 years.

After that, new planning is needed. The EMP indicates that up to a 70% reduction may be relevant in the future (Greek EMP, p.54).

The plan only deals with the first three years and not the entire period to reach recov-ery to the 40% of pristine silver eel escapement.

2

This is evident only now that the review of EMPs is nearly completed.


The estimates of pristine escapement provided by the EMP are considered low and alternate estimates are provided by this evaluation (see above). This means that more measures (i.e. increase stocking or reductions to less than 70% in fishing mortality) will have to be implemented to meet the target.

b.


N/A

8.

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts

of the Baltic Sea area, and

European waters fall-ing outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboun-dary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:


124 |

Eval u at i o n o f EMP f o r MS Sp ai n

This evaluation is produced by the ICES Secretariat as a review service and as such is not ICES advice adopted by ICES Advisory Committee. Only issues which have been identified as possible causes for not achieving the objectives of the regulation are spe-cifically mentioned.

The following evaluation considers the original versions of the EMPs. The clarifica-tions are evaluated separately in Annex 1 that d irectly follows the evaluation tem-plate.

Spain defines natural eel habitat as only the areas where eel are currently present. This is d ifferent from the pristine/historical areas of d istribution prior to anthropo-genic impacts as described in the Regulation. This definition by Spain is also different from the definition used by all other MS, which use the pristine/historical area of d is-tribution as specified by the Regulation. The Spanish approach does not support the 40% target concept which is based on a pristine/historical stock biomass and biologi-cal target reference points

defined based on that. (see e.g. ICES advisory reports and WGEEL reports).

1


a.

General:

Coordination with Portugal

is listed as the only area where harmonization of man-agement measures will be important for eel stocks. The EMP states that initial con-tacts have been made with Portugal and a trans-boundary plan for the river Miño will be required, but there was insufficient time in this first reporting round.

Very few biomass estimates or data are evident in most of the Spanish plans. Howev-er, in some areas there is some data that could have potentially been used to make rough estimates (Catalonia, Valencia, and Basque).

b.


Not an issue for Spain.

2


a.


i.


Galicia No estimates made.

Asturias No estimates made.

Cantabria No estimates made.


ii.





Basque No estimates made. However, in the Oria the Reproductive poten-tial was calculated in 2007.

Navarra No estimates made, however

zero escapement implicitly.

Catalonia No estimates made.

Ebro No estimates made.

Valencia No estimates made.

Castilla La-Mancha

No estimates made, however

zero escapement implicitly.

Murcia No estimates made.

Balearic Islands

No estimates made. However, one estimate for the lagoon on Mi-norca could be used for the Majorca lagoons, based on silver eel es-capement in kg/ha per year.

Basque No estimates made. However the plan does note that It is absolute-

ly clear that eel d istribution and abundance is below its potential levels for pristine conditions, even without knowing precisely what these potential levels are. (p . 54)

Navarra No estimates made.




Castilla La-Mancha

No estimates made.


Balearic Isl-ands

No estimates made.

Andalusia No estimates made.

126 |


iii.





Basque No estimates made.

Navarra No estimates made, but implicitly almost zero.




Castilla LaMancha

No estimates made, but implicitly almost zero.


Balearic Islands

No estimates made. Without fishing escapement would be 100% of cur-rent potential escapement.


iv.

Current potential escapement given no anthropo-genic mortality at all:




Basque No estimates made.

Navarra No estimates made, but implicitly almost zero.





Castilla LaMancha

No estimates made, but implicitly almost zero.


Balearic Islands

No estimates made. Without fishing escapement would be 100% of cur-rent potential escapement.


b.

Accuracy (estimated range or confidence intervals) of estimates of cur-rent and pristine silver eel escapement:

Galicia No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Asturias No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Cantabria No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Basque No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Navarra No estimates are made and therefore pristine escapement cannot be eva-luated. The implicit (current) zero-escapement estimate is probable.

Catalonia No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Ebro No estimates

are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Valencia No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Castilla LaMancha

No estimates are made and therefore pristine escapement cannot be eva-luated. The implicit (current) zero-escapement estimate is probable.

Murcia No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Balearic Islands

No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

Andalusia No estimates are made and therefore accuracy cannot be evaluated.

c.


Estimates are not made for any of the river basins.

d.


No methods used.

3

Restocking

a.

Expected contribution of restocking measures to reaching the escape-ment target:

128 |

Galicia No restocking

planned.

Asturias 50 000 eels will be reared for restocking into unspecified river basins

in 2010.

Cantabria The plan notes restocking will be planned , but does not quantify

this measure.

Basque Only planned as an experimental measure for the Oria River basin.

Navarra No target set, regard ing current restocking the plan notes that the aim of this effort cannot be the recovery of a species whose

life cycle requires free movement between river and sea, but is con-fined to artificially maintaining the presence of eels in our riv-ers .(Navarra local EMP, p.3).

Catalonia Restocking measures not quantified more specifically than 5% of catch from the RBDs where glass eel fishing is permitted .

Catch will be reared until they reach >20cm eel when they will be restocked as this is considered the optimal size for restocking. No target set.

Ebro No target set. Restocking measures not quantified more specifically than 5% of catch and concentrated in the A.C. of Catalonia.

Valencia Existing stocking program is described as: Thus, in the Golas of La Albufera de Valencia, a fishing nursery was established , controlling the eel captures and the subsequent release of a percentage (general-ly 10%) upstream of the

sluices

The previous release of 10% is now an annual restocking programme within the Autonomous Community of Valencia, upstream of the obstacles the prevent (sic) the natural colonisation of the species (p. 33) Plans to also stock with eel larger than 20cm. The plan also proposes suggestion for deviating from the 35% 60% rule by compensating with stocking larger eel caught as undersized eel by yellow eel fishers. Not in con-formity with the Regulation

Castilla La-Mancha

Restocking planned but supply needed not quantified and the measures are not related to an expected contribution to an escape-ment target (no target defined).

Murcia None mentioned

(minimum size is 38 cm in the Mar Menor).

Balearic Isl-ands

None planned.

Andalusia All glass eel caught shall be used for aquaculture and 35% increas-ing to 60% for stocking probably after initial feed ing in aquacul-tures. Restocking protocol described and planned restocking implied . Frequency (every 6 or 7 years or one eel generation) of stocking is mentioned

though amounts are not quantified.


b.

Appropriateness of areas and times selected for restocking with re-spect to restocked eels completing their inland lifecycle and beginning their spawning migration from the restocked area:

Galicia No restocking

planned.

Asturias Restocking locations not specifically mentioned and neither is the proto-col or method to be used for identifying suitable restocking locations discussed.

Cantabria Mentions a plan to develop an appropriate restocking plan in the first year of implementation.

Basque Only planned for the Oria river basin where there is little anthropogenic mortality.

Navarra The EMP provides a table of past restocking with quantities in river and reservoirs but with little other information and no ind ication if this prac-tice will continue. It is mentioned (as quoted above) that restocking only occurs in the Mediterranean drainage area as a means of maintaining eel presence in the rivers and not for recovery of the species.

Therefore, stocking in this area is not likely to contribute to an increase in escapement since it is so far upstream,

and high mortality

can be ex-pected in downstream migration.

Catalonia Plans for restocking in areas with fishing. Commercial fishermen with eel fishing licenses are to set aside 5% of the eel <12cm in the Fluvià, Muga, and Ter river basins. However, the Muga is not currently consi-dered suitable for restocking due to poor water quality. (See p.69

of Cat-alonia local EMP

for the parameters considered for restocking locations.)

Ebro Restocking is only planned for the lower part of the Ebro basin (in the A.C. of Catalonia). This plan is justified since there are many upstream barriers that would prevent

restocking measures from contributing to increased escapement.

Valencia The alternate restocking program proposed includes different criteria for restocking locations depending on the size/age of the eel to be restocked. Restocking with juveniles will not follow the d iscrimination criterion of the possibility of escapement to the sea (Valencia local plan, p .702).

Castilla La Man-cha

The inland location of this area, make restocking an uncertain measure to contribute to increased escapement.

Murcia No stocking.

Balearic Islands

No stocking.

130 |

Andalusia Plan includes outline of appropriate considerations for restocking and aims at stocking in areas to maximize escapement as required by the regulation.

c.


Galicia No repopulation is scheduled since the capture of individuals of less than 12 cm is prohibited . (Galicia, p .33). A conflict with this statement appears in the WGEEL Report 2008. In the Spanish coun-try report a glass eel fishing season is reported as Five days before and after the new moon from November until March (WGEEL 2008, p.240)

Asturias Restocking plan is briefly described . However, the plan does not describe how the amounts of restocking material (50, 000 eel pur-chased in 2009 for release in 2010) relates to the amount caught as required by the regulation or how/if the plan will continue into the future.

Cantabria The plan mentions a mandatory reserve to support restocking and that suitable inland fish farming facilities will be required to hold these specimens until they can be released into the river ba-sins but does not get more specific on this plan.

Basque Only recreational fishing is carried out of glass eel in the ACBC, which is exempt . This is not specified by the Regulation.

Navarra No < 12cm eel fishing

Catalonia There is a large amount of glass eel fishing but no mention in the national overview of the requirement for reserving 35% for stocking. In the local plan it is mentioned that fishermen are required to set aside 5% of catches for restocking.

Ebro Only mentions that fishermen are required to set aside 5% of catches for restocking in the part of the Ebro that belongs to the A.C. of Cat-alonia.

Valencia Plan to deviate due to plans of stocking with larger eel to spread the burden on other eel fishers than glass eel fishers. This plan does not conform to the Regulation.

Castilla La-Mancha

No < 12cm eel fishing.

Murcia No < 12cm eel fishing.

Balearic Isl- No < 12cm eel fishing.


ands

Andalusia Plans to conform to the regulation by reserving 35% of glass eel catch with a gradual increase by 5% per year. The level of 60% will be achieved by 31 July 2013.

4


Galicia No target set.

Asturias No target set. Measures not quantified.

Cantabria No target set. Measures not quantified.

Basque No target set. Measures not quantified.

Navarra No measures proposed -

Catalonia No target set. Measures not quantified.

Ebro No additional measures proposed -

Valencia No target set. Measures not quantified.

Castilla La-Mancha

No target set. Measures not quantified.

Murcia No measures proposed -

Balearic Isl-ands

No measures proposed -

No target set. Though the plan implies that the target is already being achieved.

Andalusia No target set. Measures not quantified.

5


a.


i.



Asturias No target set.

Cantabria No target set.

132 |

Basque No target set.

Navarra No target set

Catalonia No target set.

Ebro No target set.

Valencia No target set.

Castilla La-Mancha

No target set.

Murcia No target set.

Balearic Isl-ands

No target set.

Andalusia No target set.

ii.

Intermediate time schedule reflecting the

gradual ap-proach :

Galicia Short, medium,

and long-term measures described in Section 2.5: Establishing a timetable for the gradual adoption of the measures.

Asturias Over 2009-2011 will glass eel fishing days be reduced from a present number (not specified) to 15 days.

Cantabria None given.

Basque Pilot stocking with a view of implementing more stocking in the fu ture. Though the plan states This management plan has

tried to set some short to medium-term goals (with a series of related meas-ures suggested for each) to help in efforts to reach the long-term objective set out by council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 (Section 6.1). They do not relate these categories to a more definitive time-scale.

Navarra None given.

Catalonia No firm dates for implementation given.

Ebro None given.

Valencia A Time schedule or Calendar of Actions

is presented on p.726 of the translated version of the report. No issues identified.

Castilla La Mancha

None given.


Murcia None given.

Balearic Isl-ands

None given.

Andalusia Short, medium,

and long-term measures described in Section 6.2

Approximate timetable. It includes a ban on all eel fishing from 2009 and onwards except for glass eel for aquaculture and stocking. Nat-ural captures of glass eel by aqua-culture facilities will increase the percentage used for stocking from 35% to 60% by 5% until 2013

as required by the regulation.

iii.


Galicia Possible measures are described in terms of short, medium, and long-term measures but do not relate these categories to a more de-finitive time-scale.

Asturias Changes in the glass eel fishery including reducing the size of the fleet and gradual reduction in the season beginning in 2009. Ban on fishing for yellow and silver eel. Beginning a restocking plan.

Cantabria Measures fall into three categories: Reduction of fishing effort, fish farming, and restocking. These measures are presented in a very soft way with no specifics on the reductions/improvements.

Basque There is a large section describing possible measures but no time-frame is linked to their implementation.

Navarra No measures proposed . Restocking has been occurring since 1984. Future restocking plans are not mentioned.

Catalonia No firm dates for implementation given.

Ebro No measures proposed.

Valencia Diagram 4 of the Calendar of Actions in the plan presents Measures that will be completed prior to the first reporting round in 2012 but do not specify if they will begin in the first year. These include: Re-cruitment, colonisation, and escapement studies; authorize penalisa-tions for reported poachers, modify fishing conditions, create eel fishing preserve zone, modification of the current practices for regu-lating flow rates in the pre-coastal wetlands, promotion of associa-tions amongst the producers of glass eel and yellow eel.

Castilla La Mancha

No measures proposed . Presented measures can be characterized as monitoring and data collection since no schedule for implementa-tion is provided and none of the measures can clearly be shown to contribute to escapement.

Murcia None given. The only measures d iscussed are a parasitological

134 |

study and a biological survey of eel fisheries .

Balearic Isl-ands

No measures proposed.

Andalusia Moratorium on all fishing except that for aquaculture, and the use

of 35% of glass eel for stocking.

iv.


Galicia No expectation mentioned.

Asturias No expectation mentioned.

Cantabria No expectation mentioned.

Basque No expectation mentioned.

Navarra Zero due to barriers

Catalonia No expectation mentioned.

Ebro No expectation mentioned.

Valencia The plan presents expected restocking values (In the Eel Equiva-lence Units (EEU) system they propose) based on the hypothesis that the average annual catches of eel measuring less than 12cm will remain stable in the coming years (316.49 kg/year). (p. 670).

Castilla La-Mancha

No expectation mentioned. But implicitly, zero due to barriers.

Murcia No expectation mentioned.

Balearic Isl-ands

No expectation mentioned.

Andalusia Not d irectly mentioned though they do report In Andalusia, (glass eel) catches have fallen by 98% since the 1980s (p. 68).

v.



Asturias No target set for silver eel escapement. A 50% reduction target for glass eel fishing from 2011 and onwards seem likely to be reached as closed seasons is normally an effective (and transparent) measure. A license system is also implemented . IUU fishing however adds a level of uncertainty.


Cantabria No target set for silver eel escapement. A larger than 50% reduction target for glass eel fishing is too loosely defined to be translated into a quantitative reduction in fishing effort. IUU fishing however adds a level of uncertainty.

Basque No target set for silver eel escapement. No fishing allowed for yel-

low and silver eel. The glass eel fishing that takes place in Basque is described as recreational with recent reported catches approximate-ly 1 tonne per year (Basque EMP, figure 4.2). Glass eel fishing sea-son restricted from about 5 month to 2 ½ month. This however amounts to less than a 50% decrease in fishing mortality of glass eel because the 2 ½ month restriction is placed in the most productive season.

The 2kg quota per day per fisher on glass eel catches is higher than the average catch 90% of catches, by fisherman and day have never been above 2 kg (Basque EMP, p.133). Some rivers selected as protected areas for eel with no eel fishing at all.

Navarra Zero. Due to plans of only few restrictions and due to a substantial amount of barriers, turbines, etc. a recovery will not take place even if natural eel recruitment is recovering.

Catalonia No target set. Due to plans of only few restrictions and due to a sub-stantial amount of barriers, turbines, etc. a recovery will not take place even if natural eel recruitment is recovering. The suggested restrictions in fishing are not quantified in terms of reduced fishing mortality or effect on the stock. The reduction in fishing mortality is in the interval 0-25%.

Ebro Zero. Due to plans of only few restrictions and due to a substantial amount of barriers, turbines, etc. a recovery will not take place even if natural eel recruitment is recovering.

Valencia Not given but will depend on stocking or natural recruitment reco-vering.

Castilla La Mancha

Zero. Due to plans of only few restrictions and due to a substantial amount of barriers, turbines, etc. a recovery will not take place even if natural eel

recruitment is recovering.

Murcia No target set.

Balearic Isl-ands

No target set.

Andalusia No target set.

b.


Targets have not yet been set but the plans have been autonomously developed.

136 |

6


a.


Galicia No target set and only fisheries monitoring is described specifically.

The need to collect

data is briefly mentioned as well as the possibili-

ty of using indicators from the INDICANG project.

Asturias Although no target has yet been set, stud ies on the d istribution and population structure are to be carried out in 2009-2013. It is however not described how these stud ies will contribute to estimating es-capement and therefore being able to assess compliance with the Regulation.

Cantabria Distribution stud ies are planned for whenever this plan is set in motion . Monitoring not really d iscussed ,

though the need for more data to estimate escapement is mentioned.

Basque Plans to set up monitoring that can be used as inputs for INDI-CANG indicators. Plans to gather information to calculate reproduc-tive potential for estimating real escapement from

the RBDs.

Navarra No monitoring mentioned.

Catalonia The national overview states that proposed monitoring ...will make it possible to assess the state of eel stocks, the level of escapement and the results of the implementation of the EMPs). (National overview, p.63). The local plan does not mention eel specific moni-toring in connection with establishing escapement values. Though this is mentioned in connection with the Programme to Improve River Connectivity the Compilation of information on the d istribu-tion and behaviour of fish species .

Ebro No plans mentioned.

Valencia Ten units to be established to monitor escapement. Units ...will be selected based on the degree to which they are representative of all bodies of water in the Autonomous Community of Valencia inhab-ited by the species, as well as

the different management models ap-plied (p. 712-713).

Castilla La Mancha

Plans to develop them mentioned.

Murcia None planned for measuring silver eel escapement.

Target has not been set. The only additional monitoring mentioned is the parasito-logical study and fisheries survey of catch and effort.

Balearic Islands

In relation to control and monitoring The National Overview states: commercial fishing is compatible with the established escapement

level objectives provided that the maximum catch level authorised is maintained . Recreational fishing does not result in a

significant


enough catch to affect the established level of escapement. Studies are being planned to determine the state of eel stocks in the two Ma-jorcan lagoons. (National Overview, p. 88).

In the local plan it is

not listed in section 2.6 Measure to Monitor and Verify Escapement Tar-gets,

but in section 2.2.1 it is mentioned In other localities there is

insufficient data. It is planned to conduct similar surveys in the other two lagoons (Balearic Islands local plan, p .11).

Andalusia Plans to develop them.

7


a.


The control of IUU fishing will be a significant challenge for most areas in Spain.

Galicia Unclear measures and implementation schedule make

evaluation of the possible effectiveness d ifficult.

Proposed measures are not in the scale of being able to contribute substantially.

Asturias Does not mention any system to secure 35% increasing to 60% of glass caught get reserved for stock enhancement.

Cantabria Unclear measures and implementation schedule make

evaluation of the possible effectiveness d ifficult.

The overview talks about the measures aiming to reduce fishing by at least 50%, but the local plan does not provide specifics on how this would be established. There is no commercial fishing for yellow and silver eel. Recreational fish-ing will be stopped in rivers so that it will only continue in transi-tional waters. The EMP does not mention any system to secure 35% increasing to 60% of glass eel caught to be reserved for stock en-hancement.

Basque Glass eel fishing is labeled as recreational as sale of catch is forbid-den. This is used as justification to not implement the measures out-lined in Article 7

of the regulation. However, this justification does not conform to the Regulation.

The Plan will result in no fishing on yellow and silver eel. Glass eel fishing will also be reduced.

Eel protected areas in several river systems which make IUU fishing difficult.

Barriers, turbines and water quality problems still need to be re-solved.

This is a plan that seems to d iffer from the National Overview in that it claims to not be able to present estimates, but in the plan itself there seems to be lots of data presented . Focused on INDICANG indicators. No clear commitment to implementing measures. Wait-ing for approval. EMP does not include timeframe or scales.

138 |

Navarra Do not intend to implement many eel-specific measures, which is probably reasonable as there are many barriers downstream from Navarra that it is unlikely that many silver eel will be able to escape. Future plans and measures are not d iscussed . No monitoring and no d iscussion as to how or if they will ever live up to the require-ments of the legislation.

Catalonia This might be an area where glass eel could be considered to be transported to other river system as the rivers in this area are so heavily equipped with barriers etc. that most part of the eel habitat are inaccessible. There is no chance that a 40% target (whatever that precisely might be) could be met due to these barriers etc, even with no fishing.

Ebro Few eel specific measures planned. Until connectivity is improved

this may be justified.

Valencia Plans too loosely defined to be evaluated quantitatively. Major is-sues here are the glass eel fishing, aqua-culture, and the complicated restocking plan that involves eel equivalence units (EEU).

The EEU program proposed does not comply with the Regulation and is out-side the d irections of the Guidance

document as the plan replaces stocking of juvenile eel with stocking of eels at sizes > 20cm as speci-fied by the Regulation.

Castilla La Mancha

Only recreational fishing. Stocking to be planned . Hydropower and barriers will be a problem for stock recovery in this area.

Murcia Mar Menor is a productive eel habitat, but no additional measures planned. No river systems considered.

Balearic Isl-ands

Only little (recreational) fishing in Majorca. Some commercial fish-ing on Minorca lagoon, but only about 2.2 t /year. Focus on lagoons valid.

Andalusia Moratorium on fishing, except for the glass eel for aquaculture and stocking with 35%->60% are the main

points that makes this plan likely to fulfill the Regulation, given that illegal fishing can be pre-vented , that 35% of the glass eel catches is enough to populate the water habitats in Andalusia, and that enough suitable areas for stocking can be found. The plan does not deal with issues of selling juvenile eel from their aquaculture farms to other countries

for stocking.

b.


Galicia Portugal wants to ban glass eel fishing in river Minho if Spain/Galicia agrees on this. Spain/Galicia does not mention this.

Asturias


Cantabria

Basque

Navarra The lack of escapement from Navarra should be compensated by

downstream regions.

Catalonia The Ebro

river presents a major problem because it is blocked for eel migration close to the estuary.

Ebro The Ebro river presents a major problem because it is blocked for eel migration close to the estuary.

Valencia

Castilla La Mancha

The lack of escapement

from Castilla La Mancha should be compen-sated by downstream regions.

Murcia

Balearic Isl-ands

Not a shared river basin.

Andalusia Plans for shared river basins will require coord ination with Portug-al.

8

Possible negative impact of one plan on the effectiveness of other plans for shared river basins, parts of the Baltic Sea area, and European waters fall-ing outside the scope of Directive 2000/60/EC in the context of transboun-dary coordination as specified in preamble (11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007:

Galicia The low level of management measures to reduce eel anthropogenic mortality will negatively affect possible Portuguese attempts in riv-er Minho. Likewise for the Spanish part of river basins which are outside Portugal.

Asturias Yellow and silver eel fishing stopped in Asturias but not in Galicia.

Cantabria No issues identified.

Basque No issues identified.

Navarra No issues identified.

Catalonia No issues identified.

Ebro No issues identified.

Valencia No issues identified.

140 |

Castilla La Mancha


Murcia No issues identified.

Balearic Isl-ands


Andalusia No issues identified.


Annex 1 . Evaluat ion of Clar i f icat ions

Galicia The points raised do not provide any new information except under point d ) where they clarify that Once the management plan come into force, the professional fishing of eels less than 12 cm long will be banned . They do not however specify when they consider that the plan will come into force. According to Article

5 (2) of the Regu-lation implementation shall begin prior to July 2009. Also unclear is how this ban will affect recreational fishing (sport fishing is banned).

Asturias The points raised do not provide any new information except under point c) where they

present Measures to be adopted for the fishing of elvers .

Cantabria No new information regard ing estimates is presented . However, regard ing amounts needed for restocking the following clarification is provided will be dependent upon the numbers of eels less than 12 cm long that are caught in each season . The surrender quotas of elvers earmarked for restocking will be established as percent-ages of the catch made by each fisherman on each expedition, to ensure that the corresponding percentage out of the total catches each year is earmarked for restocking . A new implementation timetable is also presented . Unclear is the measures selection of river basins suitable for fishing

presented in the timetable.

Basque No new information regard ing estimates is presented. However, the timeframe is clarified with short-term being described as 4-5 years and medium-term 20 years. Management measures are also pre-sented as resulting in ~50% reduction in catches as compared to ref-erence years 2004-2007. Another contentious issue is how Article 7 is interpreted . The interpretation applied here results in recreational fishing of glass eel being exempt from the Article 7. However, this is a legal question and outside the scope of this evaluation. The inter-pretation presented differs from the EMPs of other MS.

Navarra No new information regard ing estimates is presented. The clarifica-tions do provide more details on a monitoring program for migra-tory species and electrofishing survey in the Cantabrian catchment.

Catalonia No new information regard ing estimates is presented . More infor-mation on eel river basins without fishing is provided though is still insufficient for evaluation.

New information is provided on restocking where fu ture catch has been forecasted and then calculated 35% to 60% of the projected maximum and minimum values of restocking material in kg that will be available. They calculate the amount available but not the amount needed as required by the Regulation.

142 |

Ebro No new information regarding estimates is presented. Also forecasts catch and calculates % required by the regulation. In addition they propose to use EEU as proposed in the EMP of Valencia. As d is-cussed above the use of EEU is not in conformity with the Regula-tion.

The restocking protocol is contrad ictory as they say It is therefore appropriate that the restocking of eels in captive sections with poor or zero connectivity with the main sub-basins, as is the case in the Ebro basin, is undertaken using eels

of different sizes to ensure a suitable sex ratio in the stock, which would be difficult to achieve for the reasons given, if restocking was based solely on elvers

And then later on claim that restocking will be done with considera-tion of four parameters

one of which is connectivity of the river, i.e. no physical barriers present to inhibit d ispersal of the eels.

Valencia No additional clarifications were requested by the Commission.

Castilla La-Mancha

Claims that the EMP is an annex to the EMP of Valencia and there-fore no more clarifications are required.

Murcia The points raised do not provide any new information. The evi-dence provided to support the exclusion of the Basin of the River Segura only relates to the current status of the species and not to the natural habitat of the European eel. The relevance of escapement to

the sea in the context of Mar Menor is questioned . Article 8 or para-graph (14) of the Introduction in the Regulation may be more

ap-propriately used here (i.e. a 50% reduction in fishing should apply).

Balearic Is-lands

No new information regard ing estimates is presented. The clarifica-tions reassert the position that the region is already compliant with the Regulation.

Andalusia No new information regard ing estimates is presented . However, it is clarified that the fishing ban on elvers includes the entire A.C. of Andalusia and is not only applicable to the EMU of Guadalquivir.

National Overview

Further explanations are provided . Though they need to be consid-ered individually. Point a) provides clarifications on why some river basins have not been included in the EMPs. However, the Spanish interpretation of what constitu tes natural habitat for the European Eel is not justified . Current d istribution and natural habitat are not synonymous terms. On page 34 of the Clarifications it is stated:

If the Commission believes it necessary to satisfy the provisions in the aforementioned Article 3 for these basins, Spain would seek ex-emption for producing management plans for these basins or parts thereof, without prejud ice to being able to implement suitable man-agement measures in the long term in accordance

with the appro-priate scientific, technical and economic feasibility studies and possible activities taken in combination with the Portuguese au-


thorities in the trans-border basins.

An exemption in this context would not be supported by this re-view. Although these basins may not currently contain eel, they should be included in pristine estimates with downstream areas compensating for these areas with increased measures and escape-ment.

The time schedule proposed under point b)

Pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Regulation, short-term measures (4-5 years) have been proposed in terms of timetabling, such as data col-lection and the drawing up of a suitable methodology for the calcu-lation of the level of escapement, and in the medium term (15-20 years) such as the drafting of relevant monitoring reports which will be produced in order to undertake assessment and monitoring of the management measures established and their contribution to achieving an increase in the level of escapement of the species in the long term (30-40 years) .

Aiming to increase escapement only in the long-term will be detri-mental to stock recovery. As described by Åström and Dekker (2007),

even with a total cessation of all fishing it is estimated that stock recovery would take at least 80 years, action in the short and medium term are therefore important to achieving stock recovery.

144 |

ICES Secr et ar i at Rev i ew Ser v i ce co m m en t s t o t h e Fr en ch r e-

sp o n se

The revisions to the French EMP do not change the comments provided in the origi-nal evaluation provided by ICES Secretariat. France is clearly

planning to reduce the

fishing pressure on eel. However, with the absence of quantitative biomass or es-capement estimates it is impossible to evaluate if the plan will be able to achieve 40% escapement compared to a pristine level. It was suggested that France could have used the German and Dutch approach. France replied that they were not aware of the relevant data

when the plan was made. However, the basic data

was already pub-lished in the scientific literature. In 2008 the ICES/EIFAC Eel working group summa-rized silver eel output from European rivers (ICES, 2008) and these are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Estimates of silver eel production.

Country River Potential spawner escapement (kg/ha)

Reference

Norway Imsa 2.27

ICES, 2008

N. Ireland

Bann 17.4

ICES, 2008

Denmark Køge Lellinge

Brede

Bjornsholm

105

49

9 -

36

Rasmussen and Therkildsen, 1979

Nielsen, 1982

Bisgaard and Pedersen, 1990

Netherlands Small water bodies

and canals Lakes Coastal waters

Flowing waters.

10-16 19-25

4

25.

Klein Breiteler (2008).

Ireland Moy

Garavogue

Erne

Corrib

Burrishoole

5.3

5.4

4.5

3.4

0.9

ICES, 2008

France

Oir

Fremur

Loire

6.3

1.9

16.4

ICES, 2008


Silver eel output ranges from ~1 kg/ha for a low productivity river (Burrishoole) to a high of in excess of 100 kg/ha for a small Danish, presumably productive, stream (Køge Lellinge).

Based on these, for instance England &

Wales concluded:

It is not clear from Table 1 what level of escapement could be taken as a reference level for English and Welsh rivers. However, comparison with some of the larger riv-ers notable the Loire, Bann, Moy, Erne and Corrib where production ranges from 3.4 kg/ha to 17.4 kg/ha would suggest a reference level of 20 kg/ha (and therefore a 40% compliance target of 8 kg/ha)

France could do something similar.

Mortality from fishing will be reduced by 30%. Habitat improvements are forecasted to contribute reductions of present 30-50% from current non-fishing mortality levels (By 2015). The French authorities acknowledge that these reductions cannot be re-lated to the 40% target since this target has not yet been set. Restocking will also con-tribute to increasing escapement in the future.

In the original ICES Secretariat evaluation of the French EMP it is stated:

Short-

and medium-term improvements of survival in eel of a similar magnitude as a reduction in fishing intensity to less than 15% of the present level is needed for re-versing the downwards decline in the eel stock. As the French EMP is not resulting in this level of improved survival of eel in the short and medium term the French plan will only be effective if other countries are compensating for this shortage.

Overall, the EMP sets a course for contributing to the rebuild ing of the eel stock, but the plan for the next 3 years are likely to contribute to the further decline of the eel stock, and at the moment there are no plan

for the following years, only a plan for developing a plan.

146 |

ICES Secr et ar i at Rev i ew Ser v i ce co m m en t s t o t h e Po r t u g u ese

r esp o n se

Portugal responds to some of the points raised in the ICES Secretariat evaluation of the Portuguese EMP in 2009.

It was stated in the evaluation, regarding pristine escapement estimation:

No estimates are attempted due to lack of data. Available data does not distinguish between yellow and silver eel. It could be possible to make estimates using the habitat area provided

in the EMP combined with production data from neighbouring coun-tries or the literature.

Portugal has now produced estimates using this suggested approach. They use data on actual amount of eel per unit area from France and eel habitat area in Portugal. The values obtained are between 2133 and 6400 ton of silver eel per year, in the ab-sence of anthropogenic mortality. These values seem to be of the right order of mag-nitude, although a couple of questions with the calculations remain related to:

1)

The apparent exclusion of former eel habitat which are now inaccessible;

2)

a very low silvering rate of 5% for yellow eel (given that it probably takes about 5-7 years for eel in Portugal to mature, that yellow eel probably are on average 4 years, the percentage should

maybe rather be 30%).

The upper estimate is thus regarded (i.e. 6400 t) as likely to be closer to the true value than the lower estimate.

In the ICES Secretariat evaluation regard ing estimate of current escapement, it was stated : No estimates are attempted due to lack of data. Based on the approach described briefly above, Portugal estimates the current escapement to be 640 t per year. This can be considered an acceptable value with the same caveats as stated above. Portugal will work further on increasing the reliability of both estimates in the coming 3 years.

It was stated in the ICES Secretariat evaluation that:

Portugal has already banned glass eel fishing in all rivers except in river Minho. They also aim to stop glass eel fishing in the river Minho if agreement with Spain can be obtained. The EMP for Galicia (Spain) states that fishing for eels <12 cm is prohi-bited.

Based on this it was expected that Portugal would ban glass eel fishing also in the river Minho. This seems however not to be the case

according to the present Portu-guese reply. There is some illegal fishing taking place and the amount of this is not documented . If fishing is not closed this illegal fishing becomes more d ifficult to combat.

As the total eel fishing in Portugal is quite low (3.5 t per year reported and some un-reported catches in freshwater) a total ban on eel fishing could be considered as it may be less complicated and more cost effective than implementing alternative measures.

The Portuguese response mentions that fishing will be closed from October to De-cember. It has been assumed this means from 1 October to 31 December. If this is a correct assumption, the closure is likely to reduce the catches of silver eel by a sub-stantial fraction.


The letter mentions a plan to increase the minimum landing size of eel in Portugal to 22cm. It should be noted that this is still far below other minimum landing sizes in other countries.

148 |

EC r eq u est t o ICES o n eval u at i o n o f ap p l i cat i o n s o f ex em p t i o n f r o m

t h e o b l i g at i o n t o su b m i t Eel Man ag em en t Pl an s f r o m Bu l g ar i a an d

Sl o ven i a.

The following text is an ICES service to the EC and the text has not been adopted by ICES ACOM.

ICES has submitted a report (2008) to the EC

with an evaluation of received applications for exemption from Austria (part of the territory), Cyprus (entire territory), Malta (entire terri-tory), Romania (part of the territory), and Slovakia (part of the territory).

Applications for exemption for Bulgaria and Slovenia were delayed . The exemptions have now been evaluated in the following report.

The evaluation has been performed by the ICES Secretariat. The basis for the evaluation has been the personal expertise of the team, scientific literature database ASFA (search on country and eel or Anguilla) and associated scientific literature, FAO Fisheries statistics http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en

, ICES Fisheries statistics http://www.ices.dk/fish/statlant.asp

, Inland fisheries of Europe (FAO, 1990), and miscellane-ous literature.

Bulgaria

The existence of the large Maritsa River (drainage area larger than Denmark), is an area where eel is likely to be present. The river is flowing through Greece-Turkey (border river). There is no evidence of natural obstacles for eel migration up the river and into Bulgaria. In the Greek EMP the Maritsa is referred to as the Evros and is included in the EMU 03 in that plan. However, specific transboundary coord ination with regard to eel is not mentioned in the Greek plan. Coord ination may be important for the Greece EMP in this area of the Evros since the plan includes prohibition of eel fishing in rivers during the main migration periods of silver eel.

The FishStat database was searched but Bulgaria has reported no eel catches to the FAO.

In the ASFA database

one reference was found that referred to eel in Bulgaria,

in another river, Mesta River, flowing to Greece.

Further anecdotal evidence of eel habitat in Bulgaria can be found in the British Encyclopedia (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thrake

)

where it is reported that in the past eel was an important product in the region:

Thrace

Ancient and modern region, southeastern Balkan Peninsula. Its borders have varied at dif-ferent periods. In ancient Greek times it was bounded by the Danube River, the Aegean Sea, and the Black Sea. Modern Thrace corresponds to southern Bulgaria, the Greek province of Thrace, and European Turkey, including the Gallipoli peninsula. The Thracians were Indo-Europeans who settled in the region in the 2nd millennium BC;

their culture was noted for its poetry and music, and their soldiers were known as superior fighters. Later colonized by Greeks in the 7th century BC, it became subject to Persia in the 6th century BC and to Mac-edon in the 4th century BC. Reduced to a Roman province in the 1st century AD, its north-ern part was annexed to Moesia. It later became part of the Byzantine empire, and in 1453 part of the Ottoman empire. The northern part was annexed by Bulgaria in 1885; the eastern

http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en

http://www.ices.dk/fish/statlant.asp

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Thrake


part passed to Turkey in 1923. The region harvests corn, rice, grapes, oysters, and eels; the chief cash crop is Turkish tobacco.

Bulgaria therefore contains areas which constitute natural eel habitat.

Slovenia

The ICES secretariat was informed by email that Slovenia s request for exemption would be rejected by the Commission as this request came in after the deadline had expired . However, the following information had already been prepared and has therefore been included in the report.

Slovenia describes in their letter to the EC of 23 December 2008, that it has several rivers which have natural eel habitats. A search of FishStat database revealed that Slovenia has re-ported some eel landings. In 2002, landings of European eel were reported as 2 tonnes, and in 2003 and 2004 landings were reported as <.05 tonnes.

A search of the ASFA database returned no results for Slovenia.

The information provided by Slovenia with regard to the status of eel within its borders ac-knowledges some inland catch of eel but argues that the habitat is a marginal eel habitat. Commercial fishing for eel is prohibited in Slovenia; the status of leisure fishing is unclear.

In conclusion, Slovenia contains areas which constitute natural eel habitat.

report on emp evaluations updated 2010 reports/advice/2010...this report presents the evaluations of...

Documents