1 Conservation of the
European eel
| (26912)
13139/05
COM(05) 472
| Draft Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Second SEM of 27 March 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-ix (2005-06), para 2 (9 November 2005) and HC 34-xxv (2005-06), para 1 (19 April 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | April 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee
|
Background
1.1 Eels are a catadromous species, in that they live in fresh
water but return to the sea to reproduce. The European eel is
exploited in most European countries, and is important, not only
as a natural asset, but as an economic resource. However, because
of growing conservation concerns, the Commission produced in October
2003 a Communication[1]
setting out an Action Plan for the management of the stock.
1.2 Following consultations with Member States and
the industry, it subsequently proposed in October 2005 this draft
Council Regulation, under which Member States would set up local
catchment Eel Management Plans, aimed at ensuring the escape of
40% of the level of adult eels which would, in the absence of
human activity, otherwise migrate to the sea. Until such plans
are in place, the Commission also proposed a seasonal closure
of eel fishing from the first to the fifteenth of every month,
though it suggested that exemptions could be permitted where fishing
for glass (juvenile) eels is used for restocking purposes (with
access to the sea for the purpose of increased escape), or where
existing management methods already allow for the 40% escape target
to be met on a river basin level.
1.3 As we noted
in our Report of 9 November 2005, the Government recognises the
"parlous" state of the stock, and that, without some
concerted action, the eel sector could soon be in serious financial
difficulty. The UK therefore supports the objectives of the proposal.
However, the Government also pointed out that, although the UK
does not exploit eels to the same extent as many other Member
States, they have a local importance in some areas,[2]
where the impact of the proposal could be significant. Since the
industry had been asked for its estimate of what that impact would
be, we decided that it would
be sensible to await this before taking a final view on the proposal.
1.4 In the event, the Minister for Local Environment,
Marine and Animal Welfare at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) sent us on 31 March 2006 a
supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, which said that the industry
had not been able to provide any detailed information (though
it had been estimated that the proposal as drafted could cause
economic difficulties, not least because the pattern of exploitation
would make it difficult to compensate at other times for a closure
of the fishery during the first half of the month). Consequently,
the Government would be seeking in discussion in Brussels to replace
the provision for a 15 day closure by other means of reducing
fishing effort by the required amount, and to ensure that Eel
Management Plans can be adopted as quickly as possible, thereby
also helping to minimise the impact of any such closure.
1.5 In view of this, we said in our Report of 19
April 2006 that we thought it would be right to continue to hold
the document under scrutiny, pending further information on whether
it proved possible to achieve that aim.
Second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of
27 March 2007
1.6 We have now received from the Minister a second
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 27 March 2007, indicating
that the Presidency and the Commission have prepared a revised
text, which they are hoping could be adopted at the Agriculture
and Fisheries Council next month. He says that, whilst Member
States would still have to establish management plans aimed at
achieving a 40% escapement of silver eel, the requirement to introduce
a 50% closure would come into force only if a Member State failed
to submit an appropriate management plan in time, or if the plan
submitted was less than adequate.
1.7 In addition, there would be three substantive
changes to the proposal. First, it is proposed that, where fisheries
for glass eels (less than 12 cm in length) are permitted in Community
waters, a high percentage of the catch[3]
should be sold for re-stocking, in order to increase eventually
the production of silver eels (and subsequently silver eel escapement).
Also, Member States would be able to fund re-stocking programmes
from the European Fisheries Fund, if they so wish. Secondly, the
Commission has introduced a provision to ensure that commensurate
efforts are made to reduce the mortality of eels at sea. Thirdly,
it has broadened the proposal to allow Member States to take action
against other detrimental anthropogenic influences. (The Commission
has also said that it is prepared to consider as a separate measure
possible controls over trade in eels, and in particular glass
eels, with third countries.)
1.8 The Minister says that the removal of the need
for any mandatory short-term measures pending the establishment
of management plans would significantly reduce the impact of the
proposal on the industry, and that the freedom which Member States
would have to set up appropriate plans for their own conditions
would enable the UK to mitigate the effect of the proposal in
areas such as Lough Neagh. He also points out that, although a
50% cut in effort would still be required if Eel Management Plans
are not submitted (or approved), considerable progress has been
made in developing such Plans within the UK, and that most (including
those for Lough Neagh and the Severn estuary) are near completion.
The Minister also suggests that the intention to address other
anthropogenic influences is welcome, in that it will encourage
Member States to tackle barriers to migration, water quality issues
and mortality from turbines, although other measures suggested
by the Commission, such as tackling predators, could conflict
with other Community legislation, such as the Birds Directive.
1.9 The Minister's main concerns relate to the re-stocking
provision, which he recognises is intended to ensure that there
is a sufficient supply of glass eel for those river basins where
eels are absent or the escapement target cannot be met simply
by reducing mortality. However, he points out that the provision
will have a significant impact on the glass eel sector, in that
the price obtained by the majority of the catch will be set by
the re-stocking market, and he suggests that, insofar as the resultant
price is significantly lowered, some operators may consider that
the exercise is no longer worthwhile (or that the scale should
be reduced). On the other hand, the Minister also points out that,
if there were no such provision, the price would be set by the
external market, and would consequently be so high as to preclude
re-stocking on any significant scale, making it impossible in
most cases to meet the 40% escapement target. He adds that, until
management plans have been drawn up and approved, it is not possible
to assess the likely demand for glass eel for re-stocking programmes,
nor to determine with any confidence how prices might be set.
It therefore remains to be seen whether supply and demand can
be balanced at a price which is viable for the fishermen, but
not so high as to frustrate re-stocking programmes in the longer
term, but he also suggests that, whatever percentage is set, it
is likely that the figure will need to be revised in the light
of experience.
Conclusion
1.10 Whilst it would appear that some of the original
concerns over this proposal are likely to be met by the removal
of the need for mandatory measures pending the adoption of eel
management plans, a 50% cut in effort would still be required
if such plans are not submitted on time, or are judged to be inadequate.
Moreover, it is clear that major uncertainties exist over the
possible impact on the industry of the new re-stocking requirement.
1.11 We have therefore considered carefully how
this document should be dealt with. On the one hand, we are conscious
that the economic contribution of the eel fishery in national
terms is small. Nevertheless, its impact in certain areas is significant,
and, although those who would be directly affected by what is
now proposed would presumably benefit in the longer term if the
measures in question result in the recovery of the stock, it seems
to us that they could face very real difficulties in the short
term. On balance, therefore, we think it right that the House
should have the opportunity to question the Government further
on the full implications of the proposal, and, for that reason,
we are recommending it for debate in European Standing Committee.
1 (24928) 13219/03: see HC 63-xxxvii (2002-03), para
11 (12 November 2003). Back
2
Principally in Northern Ireland, but also in the Severn estuary. Back
3
The current draft suggests 75%. Back
|
